WTF? OMG! BBQ!

I have been quite active in a few Scientology-related forums lately. And the experience has been rather disturbing.

I have for years followed the FreeZone e-mail list, Marty Rathbun’s blog, the predominantly anti-Scientology forums ESMB and WWP, and since recently, several Scientologist groups on Facebook.

Wherever there are discussions on Scientology, polarity and irrationality ensues. That is well known. But my experiences over the past few weeks have uncovered another facet.

First my conclusion: Whatever Scientology touches, it tends to corrupt. A disturbingly large portion of Scientologists discussing on the Net can be characterized as overly emotional, dead serious and jumping to conclusion without supporting facts. Group-think or “group-belief” is the order of the day. I tell you, it’s crazy in the closed pro-Scientology groups. You won’t see it unless you are especially invited. So consider this my report from the front.

If you follow my blog, you know that I am relentless on my quest for truth. Fact is King, and I am not applauding emotional rants, logical fallacies or intellectual dishonesty. I discuss with people to continually mold my views. I like how others inspire me to change my mind and uncover more truth. I am happy to be proven wrong. Because that constitutes progress.

I cross-posted “Conclusion: There are no Clears” to both the main Indie group on Facebook and the FreeZone mailing list. I also asked why the OT material should be confidential. Both were met with outrage, heat and lots of rah-rah. One guy even objected effusively, on and on, to my post on Clears while admitting he didn’t actually read the post, just the heading.

Lots of name-calling and violent opposition to even neutral questions. And it’s not only opposition to my posts, it is opposition to anyone not toeing the party-line. Just like in the CoS. I have even witnessed outright witch-hunts and lynch-mobs without the group basing the outrage on facts.

All this emotional outbursts and outrage happens right in the groups that have had the most training and auditing to keep their cool in any given situation. This does not serve as a good reference for the efficacy of the Scientology technology outside of the Scientology bubble or Trueman show.

It wouldn’t be disturbing if discussions went haywire on the HPforum, Linux Kernel lists or the EFF lists. But on the groups that tout the best mental regimen on the planet that creates the most enlightened and rational people? The elite of the mind? The fact is – no other discussion groups I am involved in on the Net are this aberrated.

Challenge a Scientologist’s core belief and watch the volcanoes erupt.

I left that Indie group on Facebook. I have asked to be taken off the FreeZone mailing list. I am on a quest for more enlightenment, rationality and truth, not emotional garbage and cult think.

I am so happy to be hosting this blog and have you guys contribute here. I love diverging viewpoints. You light up my day.

But I am guilty of being too harsh in discussions on this blog. I can see how I have let my self be hardened by Scientology, and I don’t like it. I will try to soften up and be more kind. Anette is already helping me in this regard. I would be grateful if you can help me achieve this. I am a work in progress.

Geir, the people doing the ranting and raving are people who, despite having left the cult, still desperately need something to believe in and follow. They simply cannot fill the void with thoughts of their own or conclusions of their own. They were and will always be cult members because they cannot operate outside of the brainwash. They so thoroughly believed what they were supposed to believe when they were in COS, that they can’t operate as free thinking beings outside of it. God forbid anyone who challenges that stuff they are glued to because if you male nothing of it, they become nothing in return. They are the false data they are glued to.

Geir, you are on the path of truth and many don’t want to walk it. They want to walk the path that has been deemed truth….sadly that path has been trodden down to a rut. By the time you realize your walking a path that was laid out for you, its over your head. Lucky for me, I saw the rut sooner.

I’ve been away for a bit with a lot of exciting stuff going on. I still owe everyone my story where I took my daughter out for hugs. Be back soon with that full report 🙂

Buddha and LRH seemed to be in agreement about the subject of certainty. Here’s a quote from that book, “What the Buddha Taught”:

“According to the Buddha’s teaching, doubt (vicikiccba) is one of the five Hindrances (nivarana) to the clear understanding of Truth and to spiritual progress (or for that matter to any progress)… The root of all evil is ignorance (avijja) and false views (miccba dittbi). It is an undeniable fact that as long as there is doubt, perplexity, wavering, no progress is possible.

“It is also equally undeniable that there must be doubt as long as one does not understand or see clearly. But in order to progress further it is absolutely necessary to get rid of doubt. To get rid of doubt one has to see clearly.”

Thank you. It would be helpful if you could tell me why you have avoided my stuff previously. I would like that feedback to see if there is anything else I should improve upon. If you’d like, please do so here in the open.

I agree. You’re naming the things I’ve felt for a long time. For exactly this I one by one left IFAchat, FZorg, Marty’s blog and more or less ESMB too, although there aren’t that many believers – but the critics can be pretty irrational too and I can’t see there too much positive approach.

It seems that bringing the Subject of Scientology into a discussion makes the bull immediately see red – either way. It doesn’t matter if you defend it, criticize it or just mention it in the passing. Try mentioning Scientology on a tech forum like Slashdot.

Geir
I would like to ask you two questions.
1.’ I am relentless on my quest for truth.’ What does truth mean in your quest? (not the definition, to you).
2. ‘Fact is King.’ What does Fact mean in your quest? (also not the definition but in the context of your quest, to you)

Geir – Your statement “I am a work in progress.” says it all. To see that you have not arrived is to keep the doors open and the lights on for more to come. The following video (I do not follow everything this person says but I really like how it gently brought about other thoughts of my own journey) may represent somewhat the subject of your OP. Your thoughts, your observations in others and the answer to how this brown stuff hits the revolving blades when certain agreements are shaken is but another step taken. Is it not the “charge” and upset you tap into and not something you have created? The truth is still simply the truth and is not changed by the emotion elicited or brought forth by the subject matter.

Just remember that almost all the people on those closed list don’t post because they don’t want to get involved in the same bs you object to. It’s only a small minority that do the rant and rave stuff.
Long ago I got into similar arguments with people on whichever list it was, and the worst was a guy called Fritz who was uber-rigid KSW… Now he’s a leading contributor on the TechsForReality list, the most squirrelly and far out of all. So change does happen!

What is troubling is the many that do not speak out when the group/cult-think kicks in and the mob gets going. It is frighteningly similar to what goes on every day in the CoS – people see the outpoint but very, very few even objects, let alone does something effective about it. I am happy to not be part of such groups.

It again and again struck me as odd, all the talk about „A-R-C“ and then the experience of how it is handled (and I don’t exclude myself). But don’t forget about the “quiet ones”, who don’t erupt, fight, want to be right etc. – they are invisible but neither the less there (how many clicks does your and other blogs get from people not commenting and not showing this attitude.

I said it before, I think one of the problems is the “suppressed communication” over many, many years, as well as the Stasi-like/Orwellian atmosphere in the “Church”, especially the Sea Org, a hostile, anti-social environment with pretended “A-R-C”. I am not on the closed groups, you mentioned, but maybe they are used as a suppressed-comm outlet, and I can imagine, that if these people would meet in person, the discourse would be more civilized.

Also – I like to mention something else. It is not automatically so, that the person who “has the better arguments” is automatically right. I observed quite early in my life, that people who are used to argumentation and use it “to be right”, with a lot of practice to dominate verbally, almost always outargue the ones who are not so eloquent. Doesn’t mean they are more right.

KA, you made some very good points, including the observation that people who are practiced at dominating verbally may win the argument (or seem to) but it doesn’t always mean they are right. I remember observing the same thing back when I was in college, way before I knew anything about Scientology.

Yes, Karola. That’s basically why I left the SO. I recognized that DM was a dictator (my actual word for him, kept to myself of course) and that his tone level varied in the hostility range, from overt to covert – i.e. total use of force, through domination and nullification. I witnessed it up close when he was on the base at Flag. And I do not think his BASIC motivations were for others’ good, as I still do with regard to LRH.

I think you are right. Your observation goes back to ancient Greece and is a fundamental part of the study of rhetoric.

It’s why L Ron Hubbard could write something like “Man can not be trusted with Justice” and not immediately blow off every Scientologist who read this line from him.

When I first read it as a Scientologist, I never even considered the fact that any time justice had ever been created, it had been created by Man. All I saw was that LRH was once again pointing out how aberrated “Mankind” was, and how I could not trust any one else but Hubbard, or other highly trained and audited Scientologists who were applying exactly what Hubbard told them apply, to receive any kind of justice.

Thus, influence can trump logic and critical thinking, make you ignore things right in front of your face, or see things that are not there.

It wasn’t until I did the Ethics Specialist Course, where Hubbard’s whole ethics and justice system was laid out in full, and then compared that system to the US Justice system, with its recognition of rights, that Hubbard’s influence over me was cracked. Also, seeing the Scientology justice system in action, and comparing that to seeing the US justice system in action helped, as well.

Debate and discussion can only put ideas into the channel to have a chance to be considered by people. It can not make them consider them, no matter how well the ideas are presented.

If human beings were completely rational, Scientology could not exist and DMSMH would never have been published.

Alonzo: “It’s why L Ron Hubbard could write something like “Man can not be trusted with Justice” and not immediately blow off every Scientologist who read this line from him.

I posted this recently on Marty’s blog: “I never bought into that one. “Man cannot be trusted with justice”. Yeah right! This one – I didn’t buy even in my most “brainwashed” state.
When you are getting accused of sth in the CoS you cannot defend yourself but you stand alone. The “Committee of Evidence” is a farce. (here only one of the many examples reported: http://www.scientology-cult.com/bill-straass/487-perversion-of-justice-on-the-freewinds.html )
What is called “justice” in the CoS is a big joke, a bad parody for real justice, used to get you into a state of submission. In the “wog-world” you can at least have a lawyer. One of the things I was missing most in the SO was a personal lawyer to deal with the accusations, the KR-wars, Dep 3, CMO and the craziness, to put things right (even in the sec checks – interrogations – I was thinking I needed a lawyer). If you are blacklisted in the “Church” it is not better than in any suppressive regime (with the difference that there you don’t have automatically your friends and family turned against you). And the KR-line is meanwhile functioning on the Internet…”

Now… I have a “confession” to make. You as an ex-ethics officer will hopefully appreciate this. Just kidding! 😀 Interesting that you “came to your senses” on the Ethics Specialist Course. Yep, everyone has his own “Perfect Storm”.
I was not thinking kindly of you some while ago. You were going on my nerves with the “all bad” and “even when good, so at the end then still all bad” view of all Scn. Lately I appreciate your civilized, patient and (yes!) ARC-full conversations; and your TR3 (sorry!) is excellent. I appreciate also when you present the references to show your point.
With many things you say I agree, with others I have a different view point. I have no reason to negate the good experiences I had with standard tech or an incline to believe it was all imagined. When I left the SO I was in turmoil because of the contradictions – I could sort it out. I was never closer to “what is true for you”.

Alonzo: “Debate and discussion can only put ideas into the channel to have a chance to be considered by people. It can not make them consider them, no matter how well the ideas are presented.”

‘because you cannot control another person, really. And you should not attempt to.’
Control is : start, change, stop. What you start-change-stop is a THING. The recipient of this thing is the BEING. In a relationship control as an issue only arises if there is charge/resistance towards any parts of control, or the ‘particle’ (body, thought etc.) – which is based on earlier, earlier….back to maybe the phenomenon of ‘lightening’. All phenomena are in the MIND. The being is intact all along. Has never been and cannot ever be controlled, as the essence of the ‘being’ is not part of time, or the physical universe. In my view, the charge-resistance-circuit must be viewed/observed/as-is-ed for a relationship to last. Both people have to see and
wish to make an end to such circuits. If one of them says ‘you cannot’ control me,
it comes from just a circuit and it is not good for either of them. The one, who is stopped at controlling will suppress the circuit, make amends etc. The other one
may start to dramatize the controller and the charge still remains….
It is possible for both beings to view/be aware of the beauty of control as a form of exchange/communication when it is not charged in the mind. (My understanding of it.)

Controller or being controlled are only concepts (with/without) charge. They may have to do with birth and the ‘ I ‘ / filter. The charge can be both in the mind and in the body. When there is no conflict in one’s mind, control is not an issue.

Yeah “perfect storm” is a great term for it: the confluence of many factors. That’s how it was for me.

And thanks for your kind words. I realize that some of my posts can be offensive to some people. But when it comes to Scientology I just CAN NOT water down what I have learned from 29 years on both the inside of Scientology and on the outside of it.

The “ARC triangle” approach of “matching realities” is just so manipulative to me that I would rather have somebody totally thinking I’m an asshole than to lie to them and manipulate them in order to “keep the comm line open”.

If somebody is not going to like me because of what I have learned, and what I feel I need to say, then that will just have to be my problem. But I won’t suppress what I have learned just so someone will like me, and I can manipulate them further.

That approach will wear you down after a few years, too. And after 13 years of doing this, I have learned that the way to stay alive to fight another day is to simply say what you believe, or have learned, correct yourself or apologize if you have truly been an asshole, and keep going.

I apologize if I have been an asshole. But thanks for saying kind things to me. I totally recognize your right to disagree with me and I would challenge you to present your best, most sound reasoning to explain why you do.

Anyway. There are a lot of people waking up from Scientology right now and they need as much information to think with – which was unavailable to them before – as they can get.

Good to see you here and communicating, KA. Glad you got yourself out of the SO, and keep going!!! (:>

I have no reason to negate the good experiences I had with standard tech or an incline to believe it was all imagined.

I understand this and can very much respect it.

I have made mistakes in my own past by invalidating some of what I got out of Scientology because I realized I was in a “cult”, and so many outright brainwashing techniques were used on me. It’s easy to do.

But one thing I have learned about is the concept of “cognitive distortions” from cognitive behavioral therapy. And these have really helped me to remind myself to think constructively and accurately about my past in Scientology, and not to negate things that should not be negated.

Geir is also really good at keeping these in mind, even though he may not know about them. He creates a very positive and constructive environment on this blog where everything can be viewed fully, and sorted out.

I don’t know how he does this. But I think it may be because he’s had “good breeding”.

Geir I’ve found it interesting how you have in your blog accused others of what I saw you doing yourself. I’m not sure what your overall agenda is because you have been anything but forthright and you have done anything in my observation of your communications BUT pursue the truth. You have pursued fodder that you used to feed your own predetermined view of things as it appeared to me. All the while you were stirring the pot in order to incite. You took subject matter that is close to peoples hearts and passions as to why they continue to believe in the results that LRH’s tech can produce as witnessed on many levels and then made your efforts to disparage it and challenge the validity of their truths. You then tried to accuse others of not “keeping their TRs in”. However you completely ignored the fact I pointed out to you about the intentions to restimulate others, something you were doing intentionally while posing as a seeker of truth. Your conclusions are the result of destructive behavior. The TRs do not prevent case restimulations, they don’t prevent suppression, they don’t produce an automaton. TRs CAN produce the ability for such things to be spotted and prevented thus reducing the effects but TRs are a tool to give an ability to do something. We aren’t stones that get carved and then become fixed. We’re fluid, living beings, not robots. So because a person for example who has done the Pro TRs course doesn’t USE their abilities gained is more a statement of that person and those circumstances where they didn’t apply their skills than it is proof that such abilities don’t actually exist. It’s pretty simple to see and life is full of analogies that parallel this point so I don’t need to give you one or fifty of which I could come up with in the next 10 minutes. But your purpose and how you’re executing it is no more the actions of someone seeking the truth than the guy whose hands are stuffing money from the till in to his pocket is demonstrating his desires to earn his way. The majority of my friends chose to ignore your posts as your hidden intentions were known and they couldn’t be bothered with your false fronts. I chose to communicate for the benefit of others and for the results I’ve personally experienced and caused with/for others. I’m someone you can’t snow because unlike you I’ve been there/done that and so my certainty of what I’ve seen LRH’s tech do is unshakable. You however have never yourself trained in the tech beyond what you needed to get yourself in session as a solo auditor. You missed out on over half the picture of the philosophy that you have yourself even admitted to making gains with. You’re not the opinion leader of anything but a group of people who likewise know not of what they speak. I write this because of my own beliefs in Truth and so believe that even you will appreciate it on some level.

Gayle, I have posted many comments to the effect that LRH may have made mistakes in his evaluation of the tactics and force necessary to accomplish his truly caring intentions for mankind. Ironically, Geir seems to be making the same type of mistake. I don’t know exactly what he is trying to accomplish but I don’t believe his motives are to intentionally do harm, although his actions may accomplish that.

Marildi, If LRH had such caring intentions he wouldn’t have created the monsterous organization that is his Co$. He cared about money and power, smashing his name into history. If he wanted men to be free why did he create an operation that enslaved them? Ravaged them financially? Why indeed did he charge by the hour for it? Show me another “church” that bills you by the hour for partaking in their religious services?

Have you ever read LRH’s “Assertions” (revealed in the Armstrong case)?

Interesting. So I suppose you accept the unproven allegation that these Affirmations are an invention of Gerry Armstrong and were not written by Hubbard, but instead were created to discredit him in some plot. This argument is complete speculation. It is an insult to the judicial system. The Co$ made no such claim in the legal proceedings, rather it tried to block the exposure. I would think that the Co$ would have brought that argument to bear had it not been quite clear that they were in fact written by LRH’s hand. His penmanship is rather well established given the vast quantity of handwritten work he produced.

His affirmations are quite consistent with the outcome we see today in the organization he architected. I have no doubts about their authenticity despite the efforts made by the author of that web link’s desire to obfuscate. It was evident before DM took the reigns of power. In the SO, the RPF, the GO, the Ethics system, etc. All put in place by LRH and run with by him in accordance to his wishes and plans. The desperation to deny anything that makes LRH look anything other than “mankind’s greatest friend” is stunning. The cognitive dissonance goes away when you can step back from the whole scene and take a good hard look.

Indeed interesting, you propose reverse science. You see, the original claimer needs to provide proof first. If a person (Gerry Armstrong in this case) claims something that would be authentic, but he destroys handwritten originals that he claimed he received. All for reason to protect the wishes of the donator (so he claimed), then said Gerry Arsmtrong destroyed his own credibility as anyone can tell stories.

Reverse science is about demanding evidence that some counter claim would not be true without first demanding evidence that would determine that the original claim had been authenticated. Know about the Hitler diaries?

Marianne, what is obviously there does not need to be proved. People waste time in proving to themselves and to others what is obviously there. One should simply move forward to the next step after mindfully recognizing what is there.

Marildi: Ironically, Geir seems to be making the same type of mistake. I don’t know exactly what he is trying to accomplish but I don’t believe his motives are to intentionally do harm, although his actions may accomplish that.

Chris: You are mistaken on each point. If you would try to understand his posts rather than simply defending against them and consistently rewriting them to make them more politically correct, this would become apparent to you. Regardless of what Geir might write, it is not now nor has it ever been a destructive force nor will it bar you from any real or imagined good that your faith in Scientology produces. You are not particularly free to believe whatever you want so long as you hold out an ideology to filter ever word.

This is Hubbard admonishments at work and not a person’s natural self. A person naturally wants to look but Hubbard’s work bars a person from looking at anything contrary to Hubbard’s work. It is perfectly circular and a perfect trap.

Chris; Thank you. I wish no harm except to false ideas that can be proven unworkable. I never wish harm to other people. But when ideas and philosophies coerce people into doing harm to others, I will seek out the root cause and put it on display.

When a brainwashed Scientologist is absolutely sure that your intentions are evil ones, and that you need to be personally discredited and totally trashed, when everything you say or do is characterized as meaning to deliberately harm others, then you know that you have thoroughly arrived at thinking for yourself when it comes to Scientology.

Isene: I thank you for providing such an excellent example to illustrate my point here.

Chris: And the irony of it is that there is no coercion from COS on this person to assume this persona. This is the Standard Tech of Scientology in full bloom. This comment of Gayle’s as well as similar comments from independent Scientologists falsify the argument that it is David Miscavige who is responsible for the failure of Scientology.

Gayle, I take exception to your statement that we who post here do not know of what they speak. Your arrogance is off-putting and rude. I and many others that post here were trained. I spent 30+ years in the Co$. Your “Truth” is but a collection of fixed ideas. Hopefully you will be able to shake the unshakable one day and free yourself. There are better techs available. It’s unfortunate that you hold those Hubbard blinders so close.

I don’t see what you claim to see in Geir. Quite the opposite in fact.

Freebeing: I don’t see what you claim to see in Geir. Quite the opposite in fact.

Chris: She’s here at all because of seeking equilibrium from the inconsistent results obtained from her Scientology experience. But we’ve all been there or are there (Marildi?). She’s here now and will be fine if she just pushes on. It is only an awkward and adolescent moment in her journey. The rest of us can help her by demonstrating consistency and tolerance.

Marildi, Chris is in a similar boat and thus one might say this about him: It is only an awkward and adolescent moment in his journey. The rest of us can help him by demonstrating consistency and tolerance.” 🙂

Though it would be hard to match the condescension of Gayle. She is the prime example of the insanity that went down in that Indie group – and also leaked to WWP I might add. More people are getting the drift at what happened over there.

marildi, I do not see a ‘necessary contradiction’ between the 2 posts. I’m going to read both of them a couple more times and see if I can pervade. It is just that in the one ‘she’ speaks of tolerance, in the other she sounds very intolerant and angry, or…..disappointed? I can actually see how a person who has not been following Geir’s blog and reads an isolated post or 2 could get the wrong idea.

What I do sense in both posts is someone who is not at ease with herself right now and is searching for that. Someone a bit out of valence and struggling to find balance. So it could be the same person, but the blast at Geir? I wish she would post more specifics. I think reach and withdraw is in order here. Have she and Geir had previous comm back channel? It sounds like it.

Actually, I think it’s your cognitive dissonance reduction technique nerve that is kicking in. You are looking at the crazy behavior of a highly trained and audited Scientologist, one who has had more auditing and training than you have, and you do not want to face that she is slightly worse off than you are.

Facing that would mean all your goals, and all your investments, in Scientology will not get you where you want to go. So to ease the clanging dissonance in your mind which this causes you, you are saying that it was an imposter – someone sent in here to stir up trouble – and not someone who is at the top of LRH’s “Bridge to Total Freedom”.

Jump off now, Valkov. Haven’t you already wasted enough time and attention on Scientology? You are looking at the crazy it produces.

Al, I don’t have the cognitive dissonance problem you think I have. If I had the means to do any training right now, I might well do the Idenics training, or go get blessed by one of the ‘realized’ guys like Adya. None of that precludes my someday getting trained in the nuts and bolts of how to audit scientology style.

You assume a lot, and sometimes your assumptions are way off the mark! But that’s OK, I myself sometimes like to have conversations with the straw men in my head, or have them whether I like to or not! Keeping trying, occassionaly you do hit a button I actually have.

Valkov – Re “Gayle” – the icons are also different. Either a different person or a different log on email and using the same name. Could be many different “Gale’s” or an intent to create dissent and confusion.

Yes, that makes sense. The poster with the “aka trouble-maker” wrote a post here and one on Marty’s that Valkov thought didn’t seem like the same person. That’s what I was questioning Val about, as to why not.

I haven’t seen the comments of “Gayle Smith” without the aka on Tony Ortega’s blog.

hahaha Marildi you’ve lost your sense of humor. But if you want to be real, Gayle is most certainly a troll.(click link) That is indisputable. She trolled here and that’s a fact but my joke was whether she was an OSA planted troll. Not that it would matter. None of us here are PTS are we?

Says you. I dispute it. She does not fit with this part of the definition: “…with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.” That was not her intent. For one thing, she would have lingered on, but she didn’t. She instead went over to a blog where she feels there is more truth and where she usually posts.

Chris: Well, I can know that she trolled here. How I can know that is by reading what she wrote. If you read her post again, you can do it in clay or you can pretend it’s an obnosis drill! She ripped through here like a tornado. That’s something I can know. She was worked up and saying mean things, that’s something I can know. I’m not sure why you are saying she wasn’t trolling. That doesn’t make her OSA, but it doesn’t not make her OSA either. That’s just something we can’t know from reading her comments.

She was simply expressing an outrage that Geir would pull out of context a quote that gave an entirely different meaning than what LRH was actually saying in that issue. And apparently she had tried to give him even more data on backlines to support what she wanted him to understand – which she felt he just overrode and ignored.

If he had simply stated the one basic point that he ultimately boiled his blog post down to, the whole episode would never have happened. That basic point was that a read proves nothing – which anybody who has done basic auditor training already knows!

Having a dissenting opinion based on anger about someone’s apparent attempt at deliberately skewing the picture does not qualify as trolling. I felt she had the total right to “get worked up and say mean things”, considering her assessment – right or wrong. I’ve heavily disagreed with Geir too and I’m no troll. So I say again, stop defending your guru!

You’ve screwed that around to such a degree I can’t recognize it anymore. Anyone can read what happened . . . read Geir’s OP and the comments and Gayle’s moral outrage and I really don’t care if you will admit that it’s trolling and want to call it righteous indignation or whatever… The point of the OP is that is what happens when Scientologists bang into their own disagreements. They, as a group, lose it. They are not self correcting. They do not as a group “think better” of a situation, apologize and change their direction. That’s the OP and that’s the point, and your non-trolling Gayle is a prime example of what a loose cannon that Scientology can make of people.

Some say that OT3 is the heart of Scientology but I think the heart of Scientology is the hardening of opinion. The drills help a person achieve a ridiculous “certainty” which is just a practiced hardening of their opinions so that no one and nothing can shake that hardness. This pretended certainty is the rot at the heart of Scientology. Without this mock certainty, there would be no KSW, people would actually be learning something about themselves and Scientology would be improving instead of circling the event horizon just before natural forces rip it into molecules as it flushes into the abyss of history.

Chris: “You’ve screwed that around to such a degree I can’t recognize it anymore.”

You never got it in the first place. Just like you never got that you had a crashing MU on the word “reality” in the context of ARC. I posted the reference on that for you just recently, but you didn’t even respond. That’s because you don’t want to confront the fact that you are riddled with basic MU’s and choose not to face them even when they’re gently presented to you.

And this is why I don’t really like discussing with you – same reason Per didn’t want to take the huge amount of time he would have had to in order to straighten out Alanzo. I’ve tried and already given it a huge amount of time and have seen that there’s some kind of a block to willing reception on your part. So let’s call it a day. No hard feelings. Have a good night.

Chris: Some say that OT3 is the heart of Scientology but I think the heart of Scientology is the hardening of opinion. The drills help a person achieve a ridiculous “certainty” which is just a practiced hardening of their opinions so that no one and nothing can shake that hardness. This pretended certainty is the rot at the heart of Scientology. Without this mock certainty, there would be no KSW, people would actually be learning something about themselves and Scientology would be improving instead of circling the event horizon just before natural forces rip it into molecules as it flushes into the abyss of history.”

Dee: OMG Wow, this bears repeating. What a neat and right way to look at it, which indicates to me as so true. Pretended certainty practiced over and over leaving one with no individual opinion.

yup. It’s no big deal. I’m not sure why we’re arguing whether she trolled… She trolled. So what? It didn’t go very far. Even at the time, I just thought “great!” someone venting – if they’re serious, they’ll stick around, vent some more. Learn a little blogging etiquette… learn to argue better. Start to really change, first change back into themself and then into a direction which they’ve envisioned. It’s all good!

I don’t even want to see or read anything I wrote from a couple years ago… Some people rather not read what I write now!

Chris: yup. It’s no big deal. I’m not sure why we’re arguing whether she trolled…
Dee: Agree and like!
Chris: I don’t even want to see or read anything I wrote from a couple years ago…
Dee: isn’t that a nice place to be. I find it the same and it may be called like, present time?

Some of it’s easy to say and some less easy. I seem to be able to remember my ideas and attitudes years ago when I got into Scientology. Didn’t care so very much for certainty until Vicki Aznaran-Stokes, as HCO for the Dallas Mission got hold of me and straightened me out in 1977 the way Marildi wants someone to straighten me out now. Somewhat like the way a drill sargent gets hold of young men and women and breaks them down so they can “remake” them into the valence the army needs and wants.

Back then I didn’t have a lot of BPC and was pretty happy go-lucky guy. I had to learn how messed up I was. Learn that my high OCA score was glib. Had to learn that having fun was a waste of time when the world was desperately in need of saving… Well it was high drama and seemed “deadly serious activity” and so I nibbled and then I bit and then I swallowed.

I spent more time decompressing from those years than I spent compressing during those years. Yes, today I feel more in present time and I really feel more natural and easy going the way I remember growing up and becoming a young man. Now I feel that way again and wonder what the Scientology was for?

In two weeks I go to Texas for my oldest daughter’s graduation from medical school. She was with me in the SO and I’m planning to get a little misty-eyed when she walks with cap & gown — wish her Sea Org mother could see it, too.

Chris: Now I feel that way again and wonder what the Scientology was for?
Dee: I can relate to that, as I’m feeling it so myself. Thanks for telling that. You’ll discover a reason if you need one I’d guess.

Chris: In two weeks I go to Texas for my oldest daughter’s graduation from medical school.
Dee: Congratulations for your daughter. My, you have every right to be a very proud papa and let the tears of joy flow. I am so happy for you both. 🙂

Man, Chris, you are so dense sometimes. Here, let me draw you a picture and help you connect the dots. The point is that she isn’t over there “provoking readers into an emotional response or otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion” – the definition you linked. I guess your wits go dim when you’re determined to defend your guru.

Dee, I don’t know what you are reading into that sentence of mine. I was only pointing out that I haven’t seen that other poster’s comments and don’t know anything about her or her posts (as I don’t read Ortega’s blog).

marildi: I haven’t seen the comments of “Gayle Smith” without the aka on Tony Ortega’s blog. ”

Dee: Ok, well, guess I took that the wrong way then. It read to me that you had seen Gayle name but not without the aka, since it was commented on. You do understand my error? Thanks. There was a day of discourse between the two of them having the same name and it now is a standing joke. I’ve seen her on Marty’s too, the indie Gayle. Hey, who know Fair game or legit can be anywhere, and we won’t worry about it, and can still laugh huh? 🙂

Gayle: You missed out on over half the picture of the philosophy that you have yourself even admitted to making gains with. You’re not the opinion leader of anything but a group of people who likewise know not of what they speak.

Chris: Opinion Poll: Who thinks this comment was posted by an OSA troll? Raise your thetan hands. Alright, Now who thinks this comment was sent from a mental hospital? Again, just raise your hands in assent. Let me just tally this up . . . and, . . . Well, it seems to be a tie and the reason is that there would be no particular difference between those two points of view.

Damn – I Q&A’d about saying something similar but it wasn’t going to be as nice. And I’ve already said my piece anyway. But I agree with you. And IMO, she is looking from a viewpoint that is potentially as valid as anyone’s.

I don’t mean that I think Gayle is herself OSA, but I am not above thinking someone else used her handle to post as her. Some members of my family worked in intelligence agencies way back when, and that kind of thing happens.

Chris: . . . and it sure as hell (Marildi has me swearing) is something that OSA would do and give someone a stat to do it. I’m paranoid but not about OSA and not about OSA blogging with us. It wouldn’t make any sense at all for them to not monitor our blog as that is what OSA is. But do I care? No. They don’t have good arguments and so would blow off quickly (except for Marildi who is tougher than your average OSA agent!)

Chris: (except for Marildi who is tougher than your average OSA agent!)
Marildi: !@#$%^&*()+!
Dee: Between you and Marildi this late evening has me crackin’ up with laughter. Way to go! to both of you 🙂
Marildi’s goddamn comment to Val really broke some ice for me anyway.

OMG I know and Val is really in the shits with her now, isn’t he!?! Man! When I wrote that Gayle was in pain and working things out whooee! You’d have thought I put a turd in the punch bowl! But then Valkov started writing the same thing and he got the Nobel or at least the Pulitzer! What a sensitive guy! But now after crossing her up, dang, I’m afraid for him she might shank him! It’s ok though. “See those pink legs sticking out there? Those are Valkov’s, he didn’t like me.”

Chris: OMG I know and Val is really in the shits with her now, isn’t he!
Dee: Oh, oh, a serious turn from marildi on you now, or is that a sense of humor?
A fantastic enjoyable evening and late. See CYA

Scientology being innately corrupt is a concept many have been wrestling with. The examples you give, however, could be found in any venue. I mean, look at how a lot of exes behave toward each other, look at political forums- same stuff happens.

The policies in Scn about reporting on each other, disconnecting and never questioning and treatment of staff (freeloader debts, etc) are corrupt and bad. Right there, that pollutes the subject.

So, if you took that stuff out, would the subject be corrupt? I would guess no, but that it would still be problematic due to its limitations and its blinders-wearing approach.

If you took just those out it would still be corrupt. It contains fraud throughout. Just take a look at the grade chart – see those OT levels – 9 -15? They don’t exist, never have, never will – glaring fraud sitting right smack in front of your face every time you looked at “The Bridge to Total Freedom”.

One of Geir’s points is that the rantings come from people that are supposed to be above reactivity.

Hi Marildi, I appreicate your observation and wish it to be the case. I’m one of those people who believe that ones actions are a reflection of their intentions once it’s been established that efforts to create understanding ricochet. After a point one has to be willing to conclude that there was no intention for understanding in the first place. Such was found to be the case for me with Geir.

Gayle: I’m one of those people who believe that ones actions are a reflection of their intentions once it’s been established that efforts to create understanding ricochet.

Chris: This ricochet is occurring within your own mind against your own filters and is your fabrication — nothing really to do with Geir or even Hubbard. You’ve even read his blog on your own determinism and gotten yourself all worked up without any admonishment from Geir to do so. You are reading this blog because of a dissatisfaction with your Hubbard experience and seeking mental equilibrium. So welcome to one of those places where you can decompress and resolve those inconsistencies. Go ahead. Scratch where it itches. We are listening.

Gayle: After a point one has to be willing to conclude that there was no intention for understanding in the first place. Such was found to be the case for me with Geir.

Chris: Hubbard teaches that one cannot understand without agreeing. This is another Scientology – Axiom 21 – which has been falsified. You could understand Geir’s words without agreeing with them if you chose to. Becoming upset and going onto a personal attack against Geir and Geir’s motives is a product of your Scientology conditioning. You could stop, reset, and look at the discussion going on this blog with your own eyes without the filters that your Scientology conditioning has produced. Rejecting Geir’s comments promptly upon snagging upon your Scientology defense filters is bad form for an enlightened being. But no matter. Just continue and push through this initial mass of inconsistencies.

Chris, the quote below, a paragraph from Dianetics 55. gives a description of how the word “reality” is used by LRH in the context of ARC. Bear in mind that one definition of “agree” is “to be similar; correspond ”. And “duplicate” means “to make a copy of ” (Merriam-Webster).

——————————————-
“Now there is another factor which is very important. This is the factor of Duplication. We could express this as “reality”, or we could express it as “agreement”. The degree of agreement reached between A and B, in this communication cycle, becomes their reality. And this is accomplished, mechanically, by Duplication. In other words, the degree of reality reached in this communication cycle depends upon the amount of Duplication. B, as Effect, must to some degree Duplicate what emanated from A, as Cause, in order for the first part of the cycle to take effect. And then A, now as Effect, must Duplicate what emanated from B for the communication to be concluded. If this is done there is no aberrative consequence.(*Dianetics 55*)
——————————————–

People get confused because we talk about “MY reality” and “YOUR reality, by which is meant “my viewpoint/opinion” and “your viewpoint/opinion”. This is a different meaning of reality from the one used in the context of ARC, as described in the above quote.

Hubbard also teaches that there are ONLY two types of people, those with “good” or “constructive” intentions and those with “bad” or “destructive” intentions. This is one of the most childish parts of the Scientology ideology that cripples the mind of the Scientologist. They can not see any other intention than “good” or “bad”.

They can’t even see “different”.

The guy with the black mustache building the railroad through your back yard, named Snidely, can not possibly be seeking interstate commerce and the improvement of the economy for everyone. No! He is seeking to DESTROY you and your back yard!

This inability to see things for how they are cripples the Scientologist in daily life, where people have ALL KINDS of intentions, not just good and bad. Understanding these intentions for exactly how they are, in all their infinite variations, is a basic part of succeeding in life and getting along with others.

This is the part of the ideology which Gayle seems to be crippled by when she says that:

“I’m one of those people who believe that ones actions are a reflection of their intentions once it’s been established that efforts to create understanding ricochet. After a point one has to be willing to conclude that there was no intention for understanding in the first place. Such was found to be the case for me with Geir.”

It’s too bad because the Scn ideology is so intractable in this area. Seeing SPs everywhere is the basis of Scn ethics, and is the basis of being ethical for a Scientologist. Gayle thinks she’s being ethical by coming on Geir’s blog, ignoring what he is actually saying, and attacking him personally by calling him out as evilly intentioned.

Gayle is not the only Scientologist with this crippling mental handicap from having adopted the Scientology ideology to do her thinking for her.

I have a similar experience to you Geir, except the last time I read it (and noticed it the way you have just now) was the last time I was on any course at a C of S. I could not get past it, and I could not find a way to agree with it no matter how hard I tried. It was just too polarized, too judgmental and too sweeping for me to think with. And using it as a truth or fact actually caused a noticeable reduction in my reasoning ability, which actually irritated me somewhat like a mosquito bite irritates — you kind of pick at it and keep coming back to it. After numerous visits to the idea outside of the course room I decided I did not agree, that it was not true. So there would be no attest to the course materials for me — I couldn’t finish that course.

What I find is that Scientologists often don’t notice the crazy in LRH’s writings, and when it is pointed out, they have a sanitized version that is more palatable for them to remember, and to live with. Again, it has to do with reducing the dissonance they feel when the crazy is presented to them.

They want to be a Scientologist, but they don’t want to be crazy. So in order to continue to be a Scientologist, they either don’t look at the crazy, or they replace it with something in their minds that is easier to co-exist with.

When a person becomes willing to look at the crazy head on, it’s usually because they don’t care whether they remain a Scientologist any more. They decide to seek to live with the truth whether they remain a Scientologist or not.

Then when the crazy becomes totally apparent, they try different strategies to distance themselves. But there is so much crazy in Scientology – that they have blocked themselves off from seeing in order to remain a Scientologist – that it all rapidly becomes too much and they leave.

I looked at and believed and did my best to live co-exist with some of the craziest shit ever when I was a Scientologist.

Does criticism of Scientology bother you? It doesn’t bother me. (Though there are some who have claimed that it does).

Look at it this way- no matter what anyone says and whether or not they draw an incorrect conclusion or they’re sorta right but not completely- that is not a threat to you or to anyone else. It just means they have a different opinion.

And since I’ve been getting into shamanism and other stuff lately, I’ll phrase it this way: if one walks a different path, one may find and see different things.

Nobody agrees with everyone else. Even if you had three church members comparing notes (in the unlikely event that they could speak freely to one another, no holds barred) they would not have the same take on things. A bunch of exes discussing whether or not this or that LRH concept caused good or bad effects would have a number of different opinions.

It is not a threat to you. I think you need to keep that in mind.

Geir has had an amazing voyage of discovery. His views are unique because he is not other people. He is Geir.

and so to you Geir, as you again disregard my points and sidestep and twist in order to do what? keep the discussion exactly where you predetermined it and not where it goes when truth is actually pursued. and Yes I am ok with not discussing this further.

Chris, I’ve been telling Al that for years, but he prefers to come here and elsewhere and just opinionate most of the time. And you know yourself how difficult it is to do what you just said. But it’s definitely worth saying!

Yup. You know what that feeling is like. I get all soft when someone flies off the handle from all the built up BPC of being in-cult-cated. It seems the farther those experiences recede in my rear-view mirror, the softer I get about everyone involved. That’s why I have such a soft spot for Marildi. At a point, we’re going to meet and look into each others eyes and just laugh like hell!

Gayle, honestly, Geir has way more comments, and way more requests for discussion and response on this blog, than I could ever keep up with, and than he can keep up with.
He has often overlooked comments I have made, it’s not necessarily a deliberate snub I believe.

As for this blog, I do not believe he has a fixed agenda for it, it goes wherever the spirit moves him. A person has to meet him half way here on his own ground.

I think that you have Dianetics and Scientology confused with something else. These subjects have to do with LIVING. And this is what LRH said about living:

“There is only one way, really, to get into a state of living, and that’s live! There is no substitute for an all-out, over-the-ramparts, howling charge against life. That’s living. Living does not consist of sitting in a temple in the shadows and getting rheumatism from the cold stones. Living is hot, it’s fast, it’s often brutal! It has a terrific gamut of emotional reactions.

If you are really willing to live, you first have to be willing to do anything that consists of living. Weird. But it’s one of those awfully true things that you wonder why one has to say it. And yet it has to be said.”

It would be helpful as a reference for the efficacy of the tech if at least some Indie/FZ group could act above the norm when it comes to rational behavior instead of almost consistently acting below it. A noob venturing into such a forum should feel that this group really has been helped by the tech, that the members are enlightened and wise, not emotionally shattered by opposing views IMHO.

No we didn’t because I think what you call “tautology” is what I call “solipsism”. There are 2 very distinct definitions of tautology and I’m not sure which one you’ve got in mind. If there is indeed “no RWOT”, it’s moot anyway. We are just talking about appearances anyway.

If you had been reading many of the recent threads on Marty’s blog you would have seen that the majority of posts there are quite rational now. And there have been quite a few posters who have never been in Scientology who have expressed exactly what you say – that they are impressed with the enlightened and wise posts of those who are pro-Scientology although anti-CoS.

It was a while since I couldn’t read the threads on Marty’s anymore. I have tracked his posts intermittently, though – and I like the path that he has taken. He is much more pragmatic, finding his own grounds and being more rational about Scientology. It is only natural that his readers would follow or leave (as apparently several has from what I’ve heard). I should check it out in a new unit of time. I only hope he does away with the moderation one day as one can simulate rationality in a group by censoring or blocking the irrational.

“Perception is consistent. What you see reflects your thinking. And your thinking but reflects your choice of what you want to see. Your values are determiners of this, for what you value you must want to see, believing what you see is really there. No one can see a world his mind has not accorded value. And no one can fail to look upon what he believes he wants.” http://acim.org/Lessons/lesson.html?lesson=130

“Just remember that almost all the people on those closed list don’t post because they don’t want to get involved in the same bs you object to. It’s only a small minority that do the rant and rave stuff.”

Even without moderation, it is most likely a mistake to generalize about former Scientologists based merely on the more vociferous ones participating on blogs and such. That group is probably not a very good cross section at all.

Geir: I only hope he does away with the moderation one day as one can simulate rationality in a group by censoring or blocking the irrational.

Chris: I never valued my free speech until these past few years when I found out how vital it was to my recovery from the suppression of Scientology. Free speech is the watchdog of freedom. Free speech is the first thing to go when human interaction descends away from freedom. This point of free speech is why I’ve stayed here to blog with Geir Isene and friends.

I don’t know if moderation or no moderation is even the significant factor. What I would guess is more the case is that the blog posts themselves will pull in a lot of people who agree with them, and fewer of those who don’t. That’s just my sense of it from what I’ve observed here and elsewhere. Most of Geir’s posters agree with his viewpoints.

Then by this statement – sitting in an auditing chair holding the cans and digging into your past is not living. Spending years sitting in an Academy is not living either.

If “there is only ONE way” to get into a state of living – then I ask you: What are you doing trying to assimilate thousands of pages and hours of lecture on the matter?

Also notice that Hubbard is TELLING YOU what life is and what it is not. Let me clue you in on something: “Living” does include sitting in a temple. Living includes anything that life does. Hubbard is selling you something here and at the same time disparaging Eastern religious practice. You bought it. Many of us bought it.

Many of us have also come to see through all this sales hype and decided that yes, it is better to think for oneself and not accept without fully examining all that Hubbard had to say.

Often people aren’t capable of creating that zestful state of living LRH described in the quote – until after they have done Scientology. In fact, below is what you had to say about the very same LRH quote in a previous blog post:

“Living is the game at hand. What Scientology can offer is for you to be a better player of the game you want. And that is what Scientology should be selling.

“My greatest win on OT VIII was a surge in adventure – being able to fully experience and enjoy the games I play. To play the game for real and not just coping in life. I used to be dreaming about more interesting games. Now there is action and participation everywhere I look. The quote above is the real deal. It is life as I know it.” http://elysianchakorta.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/adventure-vs-total-freedom/

But when several people high on the OT levels, high on the training levels and high on themselves cannot help but react with emotional outbursts, it doesn’t give much credence to the tech, I’m afraid. I have started a very cynical look at the results and products of any methodology to determine it’s efficacy and abandoned all inclination to justify for or defend a methodology by any other merits than the factual results. It sure doesn’t look pretty for Scientology. It doesn’t look so rosy for many other methodologies either, so I have lots of reading and exploring it seems.

Seneca’s “Letters From a Stoic” saved my life when I was getting out of Scientology. And Marcus Aurelius’s “Meditations” gave me new hope that I could find a philosophy as satisfying as I was with Scientology.

How about I go back 3-1/2 years and quote you Marildi and say that is how you are now? Or do you wish to go back to being how you used to be? The way that you argue and rewrite Geir’s opinions in order to make him over into something you’d rather see casts an unholy light on what you are writing.

Your quote was from a 3-1/2 year old post of Geir’s, an eternity in these discussions. He has written many times that he is a work in progress and that he has changed his mind on various matters. Your comment only proved that you are desperate to make Geir be like he was when his blog didn’t challenge your status quo.

Chris, I guess you didn’t duplicate what I wrote, which was “I don’t think what he said there [in the old thread] differs from how he stated it very recently.”

Btw, how would it strike you if I were to now say, “There you go again, jumping to the defense of YOUR GURU”? You know, the way you reply to me if I defend LRH when I feel someone is being inaccurate or unfair in what they’re saying about him.

Factually, I don’t think there is anything said about Geir which is at all negative that you and some others don’t immediately jump to his defense – but somehow it’s different in your eyes when I or someone else takes a counter position to the criticisms of LRH. Then it’s a matter of us being biased, brainwashed, etc. etc.

Let’s twin Valkov and Marildi together to study ad hom, and ad hom cheerleading techniques. They’ll need some dictionaries and a demo kit, and some clay. And also a couple dolls to drill sticking pins into them instead of addressing what the dolls have to say.

Val will stick the doll with a pin and Marildi will do a cheer and tell him what a good job he did.

Right. The point is that living includes a wide range of beingnesses, tone levels and awareness levels. What is above or below the norm is determined only by whether these different characteristics are experienced at effect or originated at cause.

But surely, training and auditing in Scientology should have visible, real life results – or else what would be the point? And in a group of well trained, highly audited people should surely exhibit more rationality and productivity in discussions than the HP Forum IMHO. And the HP Forum is one hell of a rational group to match. If I didn’t know better, I would have guessed they were all at least Class 8/OT8 with thousands of hours TR 0 BB behind them.

Geir, this reminds me of some in-laws of mine who are moving to the Seattle area where there are a lot of IT people and a large computer industry. They have a child who has the marks of Asperger Syndrome. It turns out that the Seattle area has extensive support services and groups for those with AS, because apparently many of the bright computer and IT ‘geeks’ who live there ‘have’ to some degree the marks of AS – intellectually high-functioning but emotionally somewhat absent or unconnected.

So using an HP Forum or other computer geek venue as a normative benchmark maybe somewhat skewed…. They may not represent the bulk of humanity in terms of ‘normalcy’ in their ability to deal with the emotional side of life.

Oh, you should see the fighting on the Linux Kernel lists or the OpenBSD list. It’s legendary. They fight louder – but they fight fair. Not nasty and thoroughly aberrated like the Indie Scientology lists.

I used to get some kind of freezone emails through yahoo I think it was. They often had someone carping about someone or other. I don’t get the many more.They were hard to read because of the formatting anyway! Some of the posts were good, though.

Everything you experience is an “effect”. You would not experience your cause if not by receipt of the effect of that cause.. This is no yardstick on “what is above or below the norm”. One’s attitude towards the matter is I assume what you are talking about. If one decides to sit and meditate and then does so then one is certainly “at cause” over his action.

A “howling charge against life” is an interesting point of view. One can certainly consider life to be a battle if one chooses to do so. That others may find one’s howling to be objectionable is just something one is going to have to deal with.

You say: “living includes a wide range of beingnesses, tone levels and awareness levels.” This is not at all what is said in your quote of LRH. LRH is telling you what real LIVING is. He’s proscribing LIVING. Defining it in his box.

He’s dissing Eastern spiritual practice – why? Could there be some motive behind this? I’m sure you can come up with a positive reason for why he wrote what he did: “oh he just doesn’t want people to waste their time doing something that doesn’t ”work'”. I’d say he doesn’t want you going off on your own looking into the very things that he took some of his ideas from. It would damage his “sourceness”.

The problem with Scientology is that Hubbard leads you into believing that every word he said is true, despite the objections that people give about “what’s true for you…” in practice, what is true for you becomes what Hubbard said is true.

Look at how Marildi quotes Hubbard incessantly – she looks through Hubbard’s eyes, brings all points back to some Hubbard quote, proclaiming the truth of Hubbard, showing us at every turn how Hubbard had it right, how Hubbard knew what Buddha knew, everything is Hubbard Hubbard Hubbard. She’s clothed in Hubbard. This is not healthy. This is not freedom of thought. She’s got Hubbard goggles locked firmly in place and is quite happy viewing life through them. She is quite intelligent in her discussion and also always very polite in her discourse. A lovely being is there.

Any discussion of beliefs is bound to become heated when those beliefs are challenged. That is “charge” being manifested. A good indication that there is something more to view. It’s an opportunity to explore what is being stirred up. Perhaps those fixed ideas (beliefs) need to be reevaluated rather than just attributing the charge to past invalidations of one’s beliefs or assigning evil intent to your challenger.

Freebeeing, firstly, thanks for the compliment part. I’ve always liked you too, btw, in spite of our disagreements, and I felt bad when you were getting a lot of inval from a certain poster a while back and then you dropped out for a while.

As for my quoting LRH, I usually do so when comments are being made that are contrary to what he actually stated. And I don’t only quote LRH. Even on this very thread, I posted several quotes and it happens that none of them were LRH quotes.

I’m not really as “clothed in Hubbard” as you make me out to be and I don’t appreciate the labeling of me that way. From my perspective, people seem to think that because I still find a lot of good in Scn, I must be a “true believer”. In actual fact, like you and others, I’m not the same person I was when I left the CoS and still believed everything LRH said. You may have noticed a post on this thread where I said I’m currently studying Buddhism, which I think may be a good practice for those who have first had the faster, but different, gains of Scientology

In any case, I do know from my own personal observation and experience that there are some very valuable things in Scn that I would like to see continued into the future. And when I encounter relatively wholesale denouncement of Scn tech, I do have a tendency to want to counter it because I happen to think it is a disservice to people who could be helped if such propaganda convinces them that it is all bad. I call it propaganda because it is repeated and repeated and repetition alone is the basic tactic of propaganda that eventually makes a statement seem to be true.

I know you’ve done some training and if I remember right it’s pretty similar to what I’ve done. But I would wager you haven’t had much experience as an auditor. Neither have I but I have had quite a bit as a word clearer, which actually rivals auditing in the amount of gain it can give – stated by LRH and found to be true by me. There are a number of auditors who post here on Geir’s blog, including on this thread, in fact, who do criticize some aspects of the tech but nevertheless continue to practice the parts they find to be quite beneficial, while improving on it where they can – usually basing their improvements on basic philosophy and tech, interestingly.

My main point here is that from my observation those who have actually had a good amount of experience using the tech on others usually have a lot of confidence in it and want to continue practicing it and have others do the same. And they don’t have a tendency to dwell on the outpoints, although those are recognized too.

I’ll try to cut you more slack 🙂 Your civility in the face of opposition is commendable.

The problems with Scn are numerous. Setting aside Hubbard’s “true” intents and the product of his Admin & Ethics policies, I agree that the tech itself does have some usefulness. I’ve audited perhaps a few hundred hours as an HGC auditor. Not much compared to those that have done it for years. I’ve studied extensively the materials of Scn tech, far beyond the academy training I did. The major problem with Scn’s tech is that it is a mismash and woefully incomplete. It clearly is not the closely taped path “out” that Hubbard claims it to be. Because it doesn’t get you to the envisioned destination. When you have an OT 8 completion saying that he wants to be able to be exterior and able to maintain his knowledge into his next life you have, clear as day, an example of the failure of “The Bridge”.

I’m pretty sure that past practices like Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are not the answer either since they have not produced many enlightened beings through their methods. Not to say that that isn’t a way, but it certainly is not a sure-fire way given the vast numbers of people over the centuries that have not succeeded in achieving enlightenment.

There are not many “tech-finders” compared to the numbers that prefer to be tech-followers. Alan Walter (knowledgism), John Galusha (Idenics), Dennis Stephens (TROM) carried on to find better methods.

One thing I’ve come to see is that there’s no fast easy track. It requires a great deal of discipline to put in the time to reach a god-like state. More time and dedication than most are willing to put into the endeavor.

How many posting here are soloing? know some are.

We can read about stuff endlessly. No amount of reading is going to handle what needs to be handled.

Tech-finding is in my blood. We build on the foundations of prior accomplishment. I don’t throw all of Scn out the window. There are valuable lessons to be gleaned from it.

Well, looks like we’re not that far apart in our overall views, after all. You agree that the tech has usefulness and only complain that it doesn’t take us to the envisioned destination. And I say why don’t we just give that an ack and carry on with its usefulness. And continue to promote improving its usefulness. As you well put it, “We build on the foundations of prior accomplishment. I don’t throw all of Scn out the window. There are valuable lessons to be gleaned from it.”

You also noted that “There are not many ‘tech-finders’ compared to the numbers that prefer to be tech-followers”. I suppose people can’t all be “tech-finders” and this is just one of the ways that people differ, One thing I learned recently about Buddhism is that there are different types of meditation and each fits a different type of person, or (more precisely) a different type of mind. That I find appealing because it’s an observable truth that people have different ways of going about things, and different ways their minds work.

Just to clarify, the main thing I have been finding to be appealing about Buddhism is that it seems to me it could be a much faster path than usual for someone who has already had the gains (or some of them) available in Scientology. The little I’ve learned so far has given me that idea. But that said, I feel that each person needs to find the path that suits them and not everyone would choose Buddhism, whether having done Scn or not. And not everyone who has done Scn is interested in solo’ing, for that matter. Actually, some people don’t want to follow anybody else’s path whatsoever but only want to follow their own – and there again not everyone is inclined to do that either, or even capable of it.

Btw, how do you mean “tech-finding is in [your] blood”? Are you actually involved in some kind of research?

Yes, I am involved in my own research. Perhaps one of these days I will have something to share. Meditation can be a quick route if the inquiry is directed to discovering who you are. I find that Mooji is quite a good teacher in that regard – he goes for a direct experience. You can find videos on youtube or at his site mooji.org. He follows the line of sages from Ramana Maharshi, and Papaji. The best Advaita Vendanta sage I have found. Adyashanti also rates high in that regard. In Mooji I see a truly enlightened being.

Well, freebeeing, I certainly will keep my eye out for what you have to share of your research in the future! And thanks for the tips on what you’ve already found to be valuable. You mentioned “direct experience” and now you’re singing my song – it’s exactly what I have for a while now been thinking and saying has to be the best way to go. I guess that’s obvious. Duh.

Right now I’m sort of being tutored by a Buddhist friend, who did through OT VIII some years ago and has now been a Buddhist for a number of years. Also, he’s the only person I know of who has read all of LRH and listened to all the lectures. He considers LRH a great friend and is grateful to him, and he supports the beneficial parts of Scientology practice, especially the lower Bridge. But he also feels that Buddhism is a much greater path to follow.

Hi again, freebeeing. First, I wanted to correct what I said with regard to my Buddhist friend who also did through OT VIII (and trained through Class IV). I used the wrong wording on what I said he supported – it wasn’t the “lower Bridge” but “basic auditing”, which he considers the work of a genius, as well as such things as study tech and all the rest – and he sees the religion part of Scn as false.

But the main reason I thought of you today was seeing the following quote of Osho, about “real religion”, which I think you might appreciate too:

“I’m simply saying that there is a way to be sane. I’m saying that you can get rid of all this insanity created by the past in you. Just by being a simple witness of your thought processes.

“It is simply sitting silently, witnessing the thoughts, passing before you. Just witnessing, not interfering not even judging, because the moment you judge you have lost the pure witness. The moment you say “this is good, this is bad,” you have already jumped onto the thought process.

“It takes a little time to create a gap between the witness and the mind. Once the gap is there, you are in for a great surprise, that you are not the mind, that you are the witness, A watcher.

“And this process of watching is the very alchemy of real religion. Because as you become more and more deeply rooted in witnessing, thoughts start disappearing. You are, but the mind is utterly empty.

“That’s the moment of enlightenment. That is the moment that you become for the first time an unconditioned, sane, really free human being.”

Hey, Val. Can you please use the goddamn reply button on the goddamn email notication? Your posts look entirely non sequitur because they appear to be in answer to some other completely unrelated post. Then I have to refresh the goddamn page to see what the hell you are responding to. (And I almost never swear. :P)

Nice quote from Osho. I’m a bit leery of gurus with Rolls Royces though. Mooji gives the same message. Advaita and Buhddism have many similarities. Buddhism is descended (while also evolving side-by-side with it) from Hinduism so it is not surprising.

Scott
‘The point is that living includes a wide range of beingnesses, tone levels and awareness levels. What is above or below the norm is determined only by whether these different characteristics are experienced at effect or originated at cause.’
Agreed and like what you say!

Well freebeing, I guess it depends on what one wants to live as. If one wants to ‘get into a state of living as a Medical Doctor”, one goes to school for an extra 10-12 years, nose to the grindstone,including long no-sleep internships etc. If one just wants to drive a taxicab, one doesn’t need to go to school at all.

My own take on the firey recoil is two-fold: first- these people have had their minds tampered with down to core beliefs.
Core belifs are usually uninspected because they are taught, not learned. (This occurs in hypnotism as well). And they are often the cause of. Nationalistic & religious outrage because the implanted lie is clahing with the basic logic and good nature of the person who has little ability to make his mind super- inspect implanted info.
Second: Scn is not a professionally lab tested
science. THE SOURCE could never be wrong, so the data was always skewed and as a result contains many lies which cannot be easily seen. “Tech & source are always correct. “. You cannot put a contrary logical statement into that compution without creating an adverse reaction

This is a truth I have been working with for some time now: The moment I postulate that someone else or something else (over there and not me) is deficient, wrong, foolish, lacking, etc. and I assert that position in an adversarial way, I create an adversary.

If I work to determine what is truth for me and share that truth with others to see if they see it too, that’s one thing. If I insist that they must admit that my truth is superior to their own then I think it is reasonable to expect that they will not respond in any favorable way. Why should they, if I do not present it in a way that they can actually perceive it and work with it? Just shoving it down their throat by embarrassing them or calling them out as stupid or deficient is just another means of seeking to dominate them by negating their reasoning and their approach to life.

So my current question is, is it or is not insane to stand up for oneself under on onslaught of attempted domination?

Interesting question, Maria. I’d like to see others here tackle this before I pitch in.

As for shoving truth etc. I have surely been guilty of that. But in the majority of the cases, I have been asking questions that makes people blow up – people that I would not expect going off like a rocket if the amount of tech applied was anything to go by. So I have done both of what you describe above – much to the same effect. But at the bottom, I agree with your approach.

First off Geir, I really wasn’t thinking of you being guilty of this sort of thing and I do apologize if it came off that way!

I have come to wonder about domination. It looks to me like domination stems from the effort to create and maintain a domain. By its very nature, a domain is a closed system — it is property acquisition isn’t it? For example, how about the belief system that Kings and Queens are granted their sovereignty by God and so must be obeyed? This is a belief system at work to foster and protect a domain. It seems that all domains are fostered and maintained by belief so obviously any time an effort is made to create and extend a domain, beliefs have to be inculcated. I don’t even think they have to be true, they just have to be internalized until they become true, i.e. so believed that no one ever questions their authority again. When that happens, do they pass into the realm of fact? Can it be any other way? Is this “truth” we work with a result of this very process? How can we know for sure if this isn’t what happens?

So much of what passes for fact is really speculation, as the past slips away so thoroughly and memories shift in the telling of them. There is precious little to really confirm against in the past. Even as we speak, the past of World War II is being re-worked and re-written — its just a natural progression it seems.

I do not think it is at all surprising that people would actively fight having their beliefs denigrated even if those beliefs are simply not true… yet.

Maybe a good question could be: what is the point of all this domination?

Maria: is it or is not insane to stand up for oneself under on onslaught of attempted domination?

Insane is a loaded term. I don’t think it is a question of sanity. In certain circumstances it could be looked upon as being insane. Take the average North Korean; most of his fellows would consider it insane to go up against the Kim regime. That is if one considered that continued life in the present body was desirable. On the other hand if one preferred instead to maintain their integrity despite the possible loss of life or what little freedom they had then that would not, to me, be insane.

To remain steadfast to fixed ideas in the face of contrary data – well that is not an ideal thing to do.

Yes, insane is a loaded term. I used it deliberately. As I see this now, this word (and many others like it) is a generally meaningless word mostly used as a derogatory. Many statements that are badly reacted to are is composed of such words in inflammatory statements — they are really just meaningless statements that can serve no other purpose than supporting choruses of back-slapping agreement (high five!) or derogatory nullification.

What is interesting is that there was a time, a hundred years ago, when being sane actually meant something that could be worked with:

1. Being in a healthy condition; not deranged; acting rationally; — said of the mind.
2. Mentally sound; possessing a rational mind; having the mental faculties in such condition as to be able to anticipate and judge of the effect of one’s actions in an ordinary manner; — said of persons.

Derange: 1. To put out of place, order, or rank; to disturb the proper arrangement or order of; to throw into disorder, confusion, or embarrassment; to disorder; to disarrange; as, to derange the plans of a commander, or the affairs of a nation.
2. To disturb in action or function, as a part or organ, or the whole of a machine or organism. A sudden fall deranges some of our internal parts. Blair. 3. To disturb in the orderly or normal action of the intellect; to render insane. Syn. — To disorder; disarrange; displace; unsettle; disturb; confuse; discompose; ruffle; disconcert.

Maria & Geir – My opinion is to follow the line of truth and integrity. I have gained much from my studies and application of LRH’s materials. If we have personally evaluated and found something to be truth then it is so, for us as an individual. I no more have the right to enforce my truth into another person world than somebody else has the right to enforce or dominate into mine. Per LRH any unevaluated piece of data can be aberrative. Engrams – with pain and unconsciousness is but one way. Accepting as fact dogma merely because an “authority” says so can also be aberrative.

Those responding to a question with invalidation and HE&R are being part of the communication itself. Sanity is by remaining outside of the actual communication particle and thought. I can discuss politics with somebody I find completely opposite of my view as long as I am not part of the communication itself and willing to allow the other person to have their own viewpoint. The communication continues, the affinity remains and each of us maintains our own reality. Any change of one’s reality is done by you and not enforced by another. If the live communication is good enough then I will modify my own viewpoint to match any change in what I find to be true. Data – ONLY after personally evaluated – can be found and determined to be a truth. That is where personal integrity enters into what is true is what I find to be true for me.

So, it is NOT insane to stand up for oneself under an onslaught of attempted domination. It is insane to ignore it, pretend it doesn’t exist or just try and make less of it. Confront and live comm is the answer. The diversity of viewpoints should be allowed to remain. Only by an insistence of one viewpoint being senior to the other when only based upon dogma is what is insane.

Just the data, just my opinion – and afterwards we can have a coffee and chat about the future. I feel we can all get along – even if we don’t agree. Not to say I agreed with you – just my fingers typing in response to your question posted.

It might be helpful if you expounded on this. What “Scientology” are you talking about?

I have to say that there is much that Hubbard wrote that I agree with. The downside to Scn is falling into the trap of belief. Belief in uninspected assertions. Hubbard asserted many many things without any clear evidence to backup his assertions.

This is where one gets into trouble. It happens gradually. You are presented with many things that are “true” while having slipped in many other things which are not. This is mechanism is understood in the subject of hypnosis – a person lets down their guard, their data filters, when they determine that the source is trustworthy. Their BS filters are turned off.

The state of clear is a good example. Hubbard asserts in DMSMH that such a state exists. He describes this state. He makes claims that through Dianetics this state can be achieved. These are all assertions. He had no proof at the time of writing, despite his assertions that he had made such a state in numerous people – clearly he did not and never has made a clear that conforms to a DMSMH clear. If he had I’m sure we’d have heard all about it. So off everyone goes on this merry trek of making something that Hubbard says can be made. All based on an unproven assertion (some would be far more harsh and say a bald-faced lie from a con man).

I think you answered that question right there better than I could do. I agree fully with what you said – and it aligns with Roger’s reply on the post “Conclusion: There are no Clears”. He also sums it up beautifully.

I only look at the products and results now. And it really looks corrupt at so many levels.

When I went out of the CoS in 2009, I erected a blog that had as its byline that Scientology is not equal to The Church of Scientology. Today I am not so sure. I see the present church as a natural continuation of what Hubbard erected. And to object to the present CoS is indirectly to object to what Hubbard had in mind (not all of it, but to a large extent). The church corrupts as the subject has corrupted it. And so on and so forth (to quote Shrek the movie).

Geir’s issue seesm to be:Scientologists are very emotional on the subject of Scientology. They cannot discuss Scientology mindfully.

Gayle’s issue seems to be:Benefits from Scientology are not only not being recognized by critics, but they are also being downgraded unjustly.

Here is the major inconsistency that I see:These two issues are not being addressed.

Scientologist are being emotional because their stable data is under threat. Please understand that stable data serves only to restrain confusion. It does not resolve confusion. If you shake the stable data, the confusion will arise again to overwhelm the Scientologist.

Therefore, the effort should simply be to place the stable data provided by Scientology next to the data provided by another subject, such as, Buddhism, This should be done non-judgmentally, and only to bring about a reduction in confusion.. Then invite the Scientologist to look at it. Challenge their confront if need be, but do not accuse them.

Benefits are definitely there in Scientology. But Scientologist should isolate the factors causing those benefits better. In my opinion, the Scientology processes simply serve to guide a person’s attention. Benefits actually come from a person’s ability to look mindfully.

Hi Geir, I think you would agree that my “secret status” Facebook group, Free Scientologist, is overall an exception to the smackdown contests that occur in other Scientology-related Facebook groups; a prerequisite is for prospective group members to read the mission statement, and be supportive of it:

“Free Scientologist
By Dexter Gelfand in Free Scientologist ·
Due to the connotations, groupings and individuations that have evolved over the years in relation to the terms “freezoner” and “independent Scientologist”, I’m electing to coin a fresh term, “free Scientologist”, devoid of the considerations of pro- and anti- CoS, pro- and anti- Marty Rathbun, Miscavige, and any and all other game-players, disaffections and allegiances, as they all stray from the basic purpose.

A free Scientologist is, simply, and only, one who actively works to accomplish, for self and others, case gain (both positive and negative) and enlightenment (knowledge and awareness of the truths of existence) through learning and applying the principles and techniques of Scientology, and/or related means, as they themselves define or see fit. A free Scientologist’s view of what is and isn’t Scientology is subject and open to change, growth and evolution as they make their journey.

No other strictures apply to this term, as I have coined it. I am a free Scientologist, and I grant acceptance and beingness to all to whom this definition applies, without prejudice.

Despite the fact your posts were not directed at them, Marildi and Gayle Smith just cannot understand or accept you have a different opinion than theirs. They fabricate hidden agendas, hidden meanings or intentions, accuse you, berate you, and just basically flip out with irrational, emotional nonsense.

Some people have such a limited ability to experience other viewpoints. These are the bigots, the prejudiced, the narrow-minded. What, have they never learned to handle a difference of opinion without spouting insults?

I say, “Vive la difference!” Break away and be an individual. You go, Gere. Blast right through the powder puffs who’d rather see you suffocate and see things through the same sealed, insulated plastic bag they do. They are afraid, but you aren’t. Keep doing what you’re doing and really experience all you can of yourself, your family, the world and all its incredible, constantly changing miracles, colourful individuals and cultures and loving every bit of it. Life is a miracle and every day, new wonders to behold for those unafraid to look.

aussiesheila1: “Some people have such a limited ability to experience other viewpoints. These are the bigots, the prejudiced, the narrow-minded. What, have they never learned to handle a difference of opinion without spouting insults?”

And it seems to me that you just did the same thing in your own post here, but you seem to think you have good reason for doing so whereas others who have a different viewpoint from yours do not.

iamvalkov: Differences are great, as long as they are not bigoted, prejudiced or narrow minded in your view?

I’ll just use aussiesheila1 quote in answer:
“Some people have such a limited ability to experience other viewpoints. These are the bigots, the prejudiced, the narrow-minded. What, have they never learned to handle a difference of opinion without spouting insults?”

About the only thing we’ve ever disagreed in was intellectual property issues concerning movies. But our discussions were always respectful.
I am sorry to hear that so many individuals you’ve encountered in the indie Scn movement are behaving cultishly. That does not give a good sign that a lot of Scn ideas will survive into the broader culture when the church finally collapses.

What I saw in that main FB Indie group is reminiscent of the KKK. It is easily worse than anything I’ve seen over at WWP. And while I have been asked to reconsider and rejoin, I would not want to waste time in such a group.

The amount of reactivity from “clears’ on the Indie group, their practice of disconnection (although not as vicious as other groups we know) is something to consider. It is swarm mentality, pack consciousness, and IMO low toned. The supposed height of spiritual awareness and ARC that can be developed through the ‘tech’ (in or out) actually produces the most broken, frustrated, and sadly delusional people in the world. Destroying what humanity they have left to save their thetan.

Geir, what you wrote:
‘And it’s not only opposition to my posts, it is opposition to anyone not toeing the party-line. Just like in the CoS.’
… has also been my experience in the Indie scene.
I found it very frightening.

And I witnessed how an OT VIII and class XII auditor, personally trained by LRH – behaved like a little furious school girl.

Since I began with Scientology in the early 1990s illusions collapsed one by one. These recent incidents made two more illusions crash.

When I got involved in Scientology, I was in my early 20’s. I was an extremely idealistic person, and I LONGED for my ideals to be able to become my reality. I KNEW it was possible. The pitch LRH makes in his early books resonated deeply with me. So deeply that I actually blocked out the reality of Scientology that was right in front of my eyes for 16 years as a Scientologist.

I spent 16 years refusing to compare the reality of Scientology with my illusions of Scientology that LRH had promised in his basic books. His later HCOPLs actually created the reality that collapsed my illusions, but still I ignored that reality, and clung tightly to my original illusions and ideals.

I even wrote high crime reports on every member of Int Strata for “squirrel pricing” and subjected myself to humiliating sec checking and debasement at the hands of Sea Org members for doing so, while continuing to prop up my illusions and keep them from collapsing in the face of the reality of Scientology all around me.

It’s amazing what a person can do to keep his illusions from collapsing.

Even now, long after Scientology collapsed on me, I still search for something that can prop up my illusions and make them real – even for just a little while.

Alonzo: “Even now, long after Scientology collapsed on me, I still search for something that can prop up my illusions and make them real – even for just a little while. I still have hope.“

What I suggest is: Take what is working for you NOW. Dismiss the rest – if there is nothing what you think really works, so it is. If you LATER change your mind about it, then you still can make up your mind newly. I don’t know if this could work for you; it did for me. You are free to decide – if you don’t feel like deciding … let it go. You can pick it up later if you feel like it. And one other point: It is good to help other people. But regarding to myself – I went MYSELF into the trap. Every time I was acting contrary to my convictions, I took a step further into it. It were wrong decisions – so what? I made also right ones. Would I make other decisions now? Sure! But that’s part of life.

Alonzo: “…while continuing to prop up my illusions and keep them from collapsing in the face of the reality of Scientology all around me.”
“Even now, long after Scientology collapsed on me…”

Oh, how I can understand that…it happened to me, the collapsed illusions – it ripped the bottom away under my feet, and I was falling endlessly down into an abyss. Some survival instinct kept me mechanically going (after I had enough and said I wanted to leave, I was an ethics particle, for 15 months detained,- ehhm “restricted” – on the Ship). It was then like “going through the valley of the shadows of death” (I believe a quote from Marty). I was only a shadow of my former self when I had left (was finally released) in 1999. I decompressed in the outside-world. But I realized only later that I was quite traumatized. I went through it (10 years later), step by step – with a lot of help from various “Indies”.
One dear earlier colleague and friend –who I have not seen for 17 years (he had disappeared- people in the SO just disappear) even helped me to overcome a piece of amnesia over Skype and we talked over 7 hours non-stop. Then I was visiting him and his wife in the US and was 3 weeks talking and talking and just being there and more decompressing. I will never forget the persons who I got help from. I came out of “the mud I was stuck in, way down in the abyss”, climbing up step by step and got my equilibrium back.
And how I enjoy the fresh, clear air up here with the others; and how much I appreciate the company! Yes, hugs!

Al, if you are “still search for something that can prop up my illusions and make them real”, the only thing you can possibly find are some other people that are like-minded, and band together with them. There is nothing really, outside of yourself that can do it for you.

Geir
Marildi’s quoting you back from 2009 as related to your last OP would be worth reflecting on. If you like, do that. I would be very interested in your view.
Actually, I could write I guess a couple pages about what I see now. I may but it is not my view that counts but yours.

Hi Geir, referring to your original post, what we’re seeing the culture of Scientology as created originally in “Keeping Scientology Working”, which promoted intolerance and preached antagonism toward anyone less than perfectly in lockstep with Hubbard’s writings, along with creating the adopting of the “I’m the only one who can get it right, everyone else is apparently an idiot or an SP” attitude/identity/valence, and taken to new heights by Miscaviage. Many people come out of the C of S with that attitude completely intact- “the only thing wrong with the C of S is ‘squirreling’ tech, ethics and admin as written by LRH”, although it seems that. for many of those who come out with those attitudes intact, it fades over time as in a free environment, independent thought reasserts itself, and a more balanced and honest view can emerge. For me, there is a big difference between those for whom “standard tech” resonates, but they can still like and respect the rest of us, and those who are stubbornly still playing the “everybody who speaks otherwise is an idiot or an ‘SP'”. Give the wave who came out in the past dozen years time to rebalance, many of them will.

Dexter, only one point I like to put to your attention: the „us and them“. Nothing wrong with the words themselves, but it is tinted with (unwitting) misuse.

Dexter: “For me, there is a big difference between those for whom “standard tech” resonates, but they can still like and respect the rest of us, …..”

Now… I feel like “the rest of us”… and also somehow like “for whom standard tech resonates”. What now?? Don’t I belong? Am I in limbo? Am I may be even schizophrenic? 🙂
I am just so glad that I am at least still part of the human race – I hope 😀 At least till now they let me be part of them (breathing a sigh of relief). – Karola

“For this type of work I would need a good PHP programmer and a really good JavaScript person who knows the Google maps API as well as knowing CSS with responsive design. If you can find someone willing to do it voluntarily then that will be awesome!”

If you can do this kind of work and want to help him please contact him at:

Mark Robson (roppa_uk at hotmail.com)

Or if you know of someone who can do this then please pass it on to him or her.

Hello KA, I think you may need to read that sentence more carefully- I am distinguishing “the rest of us” not from those for whom “KSW Standard Tech Scientology” resonates; I am distinguishing “the rest of us” from those KSW’ers who hold an arrogant and antagonistic attitude toward the rest of us. I have absolutely no quarrel with anyone pursuing whatever resonates for them, be it KSW tech or whatever speaks to them. I was Lead HGC Auditor at the NY Org in the 1980’s, and at Celebrity Center NY, I know that I did help quite a few people to make progress toward desired spiritual goals, and learned much useful information in the process. For me personally, I feel I have outgrown many of the ideas and strictures, but I am not so arrogant as to assume that I know best for others, or that there could ever be such a thing as “the one right path for all”- in fact that is one of the ideas that I have outgrown. As Bob Dylan sang in his song “My Back Pages”, “I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now” 🙂

Hello Dexter!
Ah, thank you, also for the explanation where you are coming from. I was already kind of “meditaing” over the sentence and realized that I must have not duplicated you correctly – guess your intention was coming through. Yes, you are right. Sorry for the misleading assumption. I am just kind of sick about the fighting (probably my button on flow 3), because there are people on both sides I really like. – Karola

(PS: And now I have to consider the sentence from Bob Dylan and let it run through my language relais.)

KA, there needn’t be any “sides”, just each of following our own paths, and all of us supporting each other in pursuing whatever resonates for us; it is only the cult mentality that draws imaginary lines between us, with ideas of “one right way, and you’re either with us or against us”- that doesn’t have to be part of anyone’s attitude, regardless of whether they engage in KSW Standard Tech, or anything else. That cult mentality did come to be policy incorporated into the tech, but outside the C of S, we are all free to make our own choices, and can separate that out 🙂

All this emotional outbursts and outrage happens right in the groups that have had the most training and auditing to keep their cool in any given situation. This does not serve as a good reference for the efficacy of the Scientology technology outside of the Scientology bubble or Truman show.

It wouldn’t be disturbing if discussions went haywire on the HPforum, Linux Kernel lists or the EFF lists. But on the groups that tout the best mental regimen on the planet that creates the most enlightened and rational people? The elite of the mind? The fact is – no other discussion groups I am involved in on the Net are this aberrated.

Excellent point. Scientology is as Scientology does.

And Scientology works to the extent that Scientologists are sane, rational, and can exhibit the abilities that L Ron Hubbard sold for the technology he offered.

It really does come down to that.

These are the same pragmatic standards that Hubbard originally set when he started selling people Dianetics and Scientology for money. Using the standards Hubbard used himself to convince everyone of Scientology’s workability, 63 years after the publication of Dianetics, the technology is clearly a failure.

1. Any therapy worked honestly works fine. Jesus, psychology, 12-step . . . they are all fine. They work as much as you do. 2. I’m sorry you are without humor, I can explain the jokes if you need, I was laughing like hell when I wrote them! (It’s Marildi’s fault my swearing, I swear. Boy when she tore into Valkov, I just went in the other room for a while!)

Dio: The reason scientology is such a mess, because it is missing the Jesus tool.

Chris: Agreed, and I know what you mean. As to why any therapy works, this has been a source of high interest here. We have all noticed that every therapy both works and doesn’t work. Every therapy with adherents proclaim the type of successes that your describe. Regardless of why your therapy worked, I’m glad that it did but probably less so than you. Congratulations on winning your battle.

hehe . . . Where it seems you and I differ is that you think of yourself as an intellectual and I am just never thought of myself as being all that “impotent.” I think of myself as a “poor boy, long way from home.” (click ‘skip’ after the 5 second advertisement)

SCN is a trap for fools and swine, and a savior and a freedom for the wise and intelligent.

And few there be that find the right way out.

It’s amazing.

So being a Scientologist goes something like this:

“Scientology works 100% of the time when correctly applied!” “It can take you to states where nothing can strike you down!” It will make you CAUSE over all life and thought!!!”

Then, when the despotic leadership, the criminality and the abuse of human rights, the suicides such as Quentin Hubbard, and the murdering and swindling OTs such as Rex Fowler and Reed Slatkin, the tragic mishandlings and catastrophes such as Lisa McPherson and Jeremy Perkins, the lying about his life and his results using Scientology from L Ron Hubbard – all become completely undeniable, the scientologist says:

“SCN is a trap for fools and swine, and a savior and a freedom for the wise and intelligent.

And few there be that find the right way out.”

So that’s what we’re down to now, huh, Dio?

Dio – If someone told you this “truth” that you have just uttered about Scientology after 30 or 40, or how ever many years you have been chasing the dragon with it, would you have ever started out on your first course in Scientology?

Probably not.

But because you have spent so much time and so much of your life chasing the lies that L Ron Hubbard told you, this is your final assessment of it, and you STILL endorse it.

Fricking amazing.

Let that be a lesson for everyone, then: cognitive dissonance reduction techniques can last forever, and take you all the way to your grave.

If you took everything you know now about Scientology, as expressed in your post above – that it is a trap for some, and a savior and a freedom for others, but that few find the right way out – would you have ever walked in the door in the first place?

If you could have a time machine which showed you exactly what you would have have learned in the future – and laid out all the alternative paths to Scientology that you could have taken – would you have ever walked in the door in the first place?

I think I already know your answer, based on your previous posts. But try to think about it anyway.

Your story is yours. And it is on a par with many others’ stories from many other religions and therapies. When we believe that something has created a miracle in our lives we become very attached to whatever we believe the source of the miracle was.

And no one wants to question the miracles, or their sources, because the miracles might go away. And then what would we have left?

And there is always the fear that the bad thing might return if we question our miracle.

So I understand.

I hope that you continue to regularly check in and work with with your oncologist, though.

hmm, my thought on reading your post Al was: “not nice”. Not that you must be nice, Dio certainly isn’t being nice to you either. I disagree with his opinion of you, but I don’t see putting such thoughts (better be careful it might come back) out there as helpful. I don’t look at auditing as just another version of faith healing. Perhaps it is similar – if the person lets go of that which is bringing about the manifestation of his malady whether by faith or by locating his own past decision, it’s all good.

Sometimes, it’s a tough crowd. That’s because of all the illiteracy and the drugs that have pervaded the society since dianetics was written. They need to buy the Key to Life and do the Primary Rundown before they can start to get your jokes again.

Valkov: There has also been a Gayle Smith without the “aka TroubleShooter” posting on Tony’s blog recently.”
Two Gayles discourse for awhile was lots of fun. The Gale without (the trouble shooter) is anti and the other one is indie and the anti is sticking around.

So perhaps the “TroubleShooter” one is currently overwhelmed at all the antagonism she has discovered ‘out here’ and is dispersed trying to figure out how to cope with it and respond to it all?
Been there, done that,it is a sad and painful state to be in. I feel for her.

It’s much easier to just be anti; one doesn’t have to continue to be aware and think anymore.

LOL! I’m with you Val. Easier to just be grouchy! But you’re right. Gayle is in an uncomfortable spot. She did good by reading and writing here. Maybe she’ll come around some more once she tests the water a bit more.

Actually, Val, facing the utter depravity of Scientology is quite difficult for many people. You have to re-examine all the stories you’ve told yourself for so long and learn new skills in logic and critical thinking in order to not lie to yourself any more, and you have to face that you are just a human being, like everyone else, and not some all-knowing, immortal cartoon character who can potentially see through walls and fly around the room outside his body like a Superman.

But I can tell you that in this new acceptance of your lot as a run of the mill human, there is huge potential still, and a re-appreciation of your life and the lives of other human beings, and with this comes a huge hope of things to come.

But this time – without having to pay anyone else, or to enslave your mind to a fixed ideology, for the privilege.

It’s hard, but if you really are seeking to live with the truth, it is well worth it.

And you can take aspirin! And when you get a cold, you don’t have to look around for the SP to blame for it!

iamvalkov: It’s much easier to just be anti; one doesn’t have to continue to be aware and think anymore.

Not sure what you mean by this statement. There are two separate Gayles who are two different people with the same name.
I also disagree with your statement above. It is best to be aware and think as an individual without having sides. One see what one sees from experience as you well know. Being an anti is just as broad a word as an indie or scientologist. One could say the same about a scio who “doesn’t have to continue to be aware and think anymore” either.
I may have misunderstood and sorry if that. Were you speaking of yourself as an anti? My easy idea is to say to heck with that crap and enjoy living and communicating, learning whenever, whatever one wants, while allowing others the same.

Chris: yup. That would be the way I was taught at home — before Scientology taught me how stupid and ineffective I was for thinking that way!
Dee: When I have looked back and see how I was robotized, controlled, it’s actually funny, unbelievable. Thank goodness we can reflect and understand now.
I’m beginning to see the iamvalkov humor- I think, thanks!

What I mean is that when you label yourself you assume a limited identity. When you label another you attribute a limited identity to them. However, there are people who are ‘anti’ as an article of faith; at least they sure sound like it. It is their self-proclaimed identity, and it limits them and their thinking. “Scientology? Oh, I’m against that!” I don’t call that awareness or thought.

iamvalkov: Scientology? Oh, I’m against that!” I don’t call that awareness or thought.
Dee: I call that – they’ve heard the negative aspects of CofS, which to anyone on the street IS Scientology and they’re smart enough not to get involved, therefore they have had some education on the subject and are aware of the dangers IMO.

A “cause” of a manifestation is an “earlier” manifestation by some logical association. The cause of this earlier manifestation may still be an “earlier” manifestation by similar association. Thus, the causes may stretch back endlessly as long as logical associations are provided.

Ultimately, there has to be a manifestation with no association with some prior manifestation, which could be perceived. But the logic of “there must be a cause” may force us to speculate. A mental object, such as, “uncaused cause” may then be established to satisfy the logic. Thus, come about filters.

Logic is likely to lead ultimately to speculation and filters.

The known is simply the reality, which is there. The unknowns are the logical “filters” that are “coloring” that reality.

Vin: Ultimately, there has to be a manifestation with no association with some prior manifestation, which could be perceived. But the logic of “there must be a cause” may force us to speculate. A mental object, such as, “uncaused cause” may then be established to satisfy the logic. Thus, come about filters.

Chris: Well, there may be “a manifestation with no association with some prior manifestation” every moment? This is the quantum change at its heart. The fallacy lies in the application of the quantum (tiny) changes to the macro (greater) world. This is where the physics differs to me. (“. . . small moves, Ellie, small moves.”)

Chris and Val, I think the two of you may be using the word “motivate” (as the basic word in “unmotivated”) in two different ways. It seems that Val is using it in the context of “overt/motivator” and Chris means it in the context of cause and effect. Just a thought for you to consider.

“something (such as a fact or circumstance) that shows an action to be reasonable or necessary;”

It is similar to motive, motivating factors, etc. LRH said “Cause is motivated by the future.” In other words a more ‘causative’ person does things more proactively. A less ‘causitive’ person may let things slide and not act until there is a crisis.

At bottom, a person is free to act without any ‘justification’ at all. He can act without any motive.

There is also the Christian religious sense which is a bit different and has to do with what God does; it has to do with making things be ‘right’ in God’s view, as I understand it.

Rather, I tell how Independent Scientologists showed me the worst lynch mob I’ve seen on the Net and that this surprises me given that most of them have devoted a large portion of their lives to handle factors that presumably should prevent such a thing (aberration).

And, would you rather I tell it somewhere else than here?

And, what exactly was your intended delivery with your comment here?

I hope this is not the typical cowardly and reactive hit’n run, cause I am truly interested in your answers.

By analogy, Marty has alluded a couple of times in the past couple of months about similar actions/communications towards him in response to the direction he was taking his blog. A few people wanted to know more, including who and what, which he refused to provide. He was then scolded for mentioning it at all, if he would not provide details.

I would be surprised if in the future he will make much mention of such incidents, probably preferring to just continue on his chosen course.

Make of it what you will, but I can see his point. You get what you put your attention on.

Good post, Val. Yes, I recall that Marty did in fact do something similar, but now that you mention it, it does seem that he has decided not to repeat that kind of thing – and probably for the simple reason that it generated too much protest about it. He no doubt agrees with LRH about the harmful effects that a generality can create and realized that was what he was stating. And I agree with you that this falls under Ethics and Reason, and Optimum survival.

Well, Geir you heard it straight from HCO. The quicker you get through your ethics routing form, the quicker you can get back on lines where we all want you to be but sadly you can’t be for now. Of course you’ll take your meals separately. You’ll study separately. Oh, and grab a change of clothes because you can’t be around Anette. But there’s no reason this has to take a long time. Chin up! Good luck! And just remember, “this is all going to turn put alright!”

I was about to say something similar to what Val just posted. Here’s a quote describing Aristotle’s idea of ethics:

“Human happiness, therefore, consists in activity of the soul according to reason. In practical terms, this activity is expressed through ethical virtue, when a person directs his actions according to reason. The very highest human life, however, consists in contemplation of the greatest goods.” http://www.gradesaver.com/aristotles-ethics/study-guide/short-summary/

So what is the difference between Aristotle’s and LRH’s idea of Ethics? Both refer to reason and the greatest good.

The difference is actually a very critical one, and it lies in the definition of “good”, which Aristotle went to great lengths to define very carefully, and which LRH left undefined for Scientologists.

If you read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, it is clear that LRH used parts of it to create the ethics system in Scientology. But he left out other parts, this definition of “good” being just one of them.

Without a definition for “good”, the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” can be interpreted in a way that can be abused – exactly the way it has been abused by the Church.

When Aristotle says to “contemplate the greatest good” what is being said is very specific. When LRH says it, it could mean anything he wanted it to mean.

The definition of “good” that LRH left out of his ethics system is why Scientology ethics went off the rails. He either did it intentionally or had no idea of the importance of it.

That he kept the system in place as it went off the rails over and over from 1965 until his death in 1986, to me, shows he did this intentionally.

I will not go into detail here. Basic data; One person fucked up. The lynch mob gathered and immediately jumped to the conclusion that the fuck-up was intentional and of the most evil sort, and promptly called the person a sociopath etc. This without facts on the table. Classic KKK. The person was totally broken by the ensuing torrent.

But isn’t what you’ve already said (just above at 2013-05-14 @ 20:25) enough that anyone who knows what you’re talking about already knows what was said, and about whom? Especially since you’ve given the additional clue of naming one person who was involved (Gale Smith aka trouble shooter).

Yes, Geir, I can respect that. I’m just saying that it doesn’t seem to me that what you’ve stated was ethical to start with, without explaining more about it. And again, especially since you specifically named someone as part of what you, in so many words, are saying was something horrible and deliberate – but without really saying what it was.

As I said, Gayle outed herself and to try to put her extreme rant here (a rant I would no tolerate if it was directed at you) into context, it needed a clarification to the OP. I have very little respect left for Gayle, I may add.

You are dying to explain this insanity away, just like you explain all the insanities away in Scientology.

The reason I am assuming this is an insanity is because I have seen it so many times before, and I seriously doubt if Geir is going to react this way to something that is not a legitimate insanity.

Also, the wasps arriving from the hive like “Troubleshooter” and “Adog” to accuse Geir of evil intentions is another tell-tale signal of Scientology cult insanity.

But you may be right.

Geir may be a screeching schoolgirl in this situation, picking up his dress and fleeing from a simple and easily understood misunderstanding from highly trained and rational Scientology OTs who would be the first sane and rational group of highly trained Scientology OTs to ever exist on Earth, or any other planet.

But let’s wait and see.

Maybe they can send a diplomatic ambassador over to clamly , sorry, calmly explain the situation and diffuse it. So far, the two people who have come over are probably their sanest diplomats – and look how they fared.

But I keep an open mind.

(50 bucks says this is the funniest, most batshit crazy Scientology freakout since Capt Bill assigned a TREASON condition to Xenu. Any takers?)

I am coming to grips with the fact that years and years of auditing and training may do nothing to raise some people above a common tendency to find a person guilty before proven innocent. Do you see the same?

It’s one of the endearing qualities of humans, their insanity. As long as people have minds, some basic automatic functions will be there. These are founded on basic goals that are probably not even conceivable to a mind.

No self is a basic requirement to even start to see more fundamental truths.

First: Thanks for not doing a hit’n run.
Secondly: You must not have followed my writing much and my changes in viewpoints – much thanks to the contributors on this very blog. Stick around, and we may both benefit from evolving viewpoints.

Yes the indies are true scientologists, right beyond reason, sure and certain without experience.

I like how you worded that. Succinct and eloquent.

That reminds me of Shakespeare:

but man, proud man,
Dress’d in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d—

Isabella:
Merciful heaven,
Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt
Splits the unwedgeable and gnarlèd oak
Than the soft myrtle; but man, proud man,
Dress’d in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assur’d—
His glassy essence—like an angry ape
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As makes the angels weep; who, with our spleens,
Would all themselves laugh mortal.
Measure For Measure Act 2, scene 2, 114–123

Isabella, a novice at the local convent, is pleading for her brother’s life. Angelo, who’s temporarily Vienna’s chief executive, has got the idea into his head that it’s up to him to reform the criminal justice system, and he begins by ruthlessly enforcing laws which had been ignored for years. One such law condemns fornicators to die, and Isabella’s brother is the first victim. She has come to Angelo to beg for mercy—an essential quality of God’s justice, as it ought thus be for man’s justice.

As Angelo coldly refuses her entreaties, Isabella grows more passionate. She compares Heaven’s tempering of its power to the cruel literalism of Angelo’s justice. Heaven, when it strikes, at least strikes the most hardened and impassive victims—its thunder fells gnarled oaks, not soft myrtles. But Angelo, puffed up with pride by his “little brief authority”—his only temporary and limited power—arrogantly strikes out indiscriminately, even at soft myrtles like Isabella’s young brother. Forgetting his “glassy essence”—the fragility of his soul, and its ultimate appointment with the Creator—arrogant man makes angels weep. If the angels had our “spleens” (self-regarding passions), they’d only laugh themselves to death.

When we look at what is there, either with closed, or with open eyes, without any preconceived notions, we find it to be quite astonishing. Suddenly, we realize that we really don’t know what we are looking at. It is at once scary and exhilarating.

Then the names and forms that we have been taught, start appearing in the mind, and we start to “understand” once again what is there. The logical associations are back in place again. That provides a relief.

The foundation of knowledge is not something esoteric. It is simply the logical associations among what is there.

The first Noble Truth of Buddha points to dukkha as something that needs to be understood. The term dukkha contains the ordinary meaning of ‘suffering’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas, such as, ‘imperfection’, ‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’, and ‘insubstantiality’. The way to happiness starts with a complete understanding of this term dukkha.

You know, I may not agree 100% with all that Geir writes, but I think it takes a great amount of honesty, integrity and self determinism to go against this tide of SCN being the master of thinking. You have made SCN like that, claiming ‘The truth’ and such nonsense. Is there such a thing as the truth? If you know it, why do you still elect enemies? Isn’t responsibility part of that truth? Rhetoric Qs. Not expecting an answer.

You may have missed reading Ron’s criticism against authoritarianism –especially when he referred to the field of mental health.

It’s ironic how a highly trained dude should be willing/able to allow another to have his point a view and cognite from there. But that isn’t truth enough.

Truth is….ehhh what is it? I guess it’s that we’re a ‘group’ although we most often disagree with each other. And Geir can’t talk because he doesn’t have enough diplomas to impose his opinions over another –because that’s what being a highly trained auditor means….you suck

Geir, you have posted on Freezoneorg, and I found your posts disturbing.

Communication is only as good as the intention behind it. “There are no clears” or words to that effect put on a subject line on a Scientology list is simply gross; most Scientologists would consider that an attack and not read all the way through. Would you go on a Christian forum and say “There is no Jesus” as a subject, then expect people to read such a subject all the way through?

Then when there is a counter-attack you simply make yourself right and show how “Scientology” ruins anything it touches, a generality. Scientology does nothing of itself, it is a body of data. People do things; and if you don’t want HE&R don’t deliberately come to a list and start pissing all over it.

While you have a right to your opinions, if I had still been moderator of that group I would have removed you in a blink of an eye. The purpose of that group is to connect up Scientologists with others so they can have service outside of the Church and to help keep their purposes revitalized. We put Success Stories there to remind those who aren’t currently on lines that the wins are available in the freezone and they can have their bridge. It is not a list for those who would want to shake the certainty of any Scientologist, or challange its premises. You can do that on ESMB.

Try reading in the Creation of Human Ability “This is Scientology” (page 187 in my issue) and get what Scientology is. Por Favor! (Please!)

Then there is also the very basic ARC triangle. If you try to lower a group’s reality you automatically lower affinity and communication with that group. You do it extremely and suddenly like “there are no clears”, you create an immediate and sudden ARC break.

I can only but wonder wtf you expected the groups will do other wise with your viewpoints. I can tell you for example that if I walk into a BMW owner club get together pronouncing that VW is a much better car than a. BWM that I will fully expect to be scolded and told to fuck off. I will not be surprised by the group’s reaction.

You go and look for shit and then be surprised when you get it!

Of cause if the ARC triangle and the tech on groups falls in your bucket of unworkable Scientology shit, just ignore my post.

My conclusion is pretty simple – not only from experiences related to my own posts, but fro a large quantity of posts and opinions in a dozen or so online groups made up of Scientologists: I can discern no noticeable difference in the responses and behavior of those groups as compared to other comparable groups. If anything, I can see more touchiness, more conviction to externally imposed beliefs. In short somewhat more group-think. This goes for the anti-Scientology groups as well. I will look elsewhere for people in search of truth.

If a Scientologist is afraid that to make a ‘bad’ thought/comm about SCN is an overt and that it will greatly burden his case, and hold him back from attaining EP, then you got a why. As a SCNist I was indocrinated into believing that. Anything negative concerning SCN was seen as evil –that there’s an evil intention behind it.

I guess to promise an EP and have a person pay and work for it for decades and then let him find out the EP doesn’t exist, is not evil enough…ahem

I’m sorry but that’s how churchies are told and even forced to think like. You’d better get out of that trap, not to prove me right, but for your own sake. SCN can bring about results in it’s current state. But if one promises you 1 million $ and only gives you 200 $ per year -while you devote all your time and energy on it waiting for the million- and in the end you are told that “there is no million”, and “don’t have such illusions”, that is B E T R A Y A L.

If you clear the words/concepts, only Life remains. What is Life in opposition to then? The EP is always Life. Spontaneous ‘knowing’ without the intervention of a concept.
‘let him find out the EP doesn’t exist’ – when it is the ‘ I ‘ concept, what a relief! As it truely doesn’t exist!

Your ‘views’ are not you, as you very well know it. They can be molded endlessly.
More interesting could be to really ask yourself who/what has views. From your posts it looks that you have already asked that and on OT8 you found the ‘answer’.
What are you still searching for?

Another group of ‘thoughtful and intelligent people’ to help find which one is already the expression-manifestation of – Truth. Where will one ‘find’ THAT which one has never ‘lost’? It’s not a devaluation of those people, or the forum. A forum or a blog are excellent places for communication, for expressing views and ideas which are manifestations arising from Truth where these manifestations are not different in their ‘substance’ out of which they are formed. One can say then
that a forum is a good ‘truth exchange place’ to experience Truth in its various forms.

I know exactly what you mean. I am also still progressing. When I started to read about Buddhism I was almost crying about such love and empathy compared with the coldness inside the system Scientology but also inside society. I noticed the problems in that system Scientology are also in the society in general or other groups which are fanatic or think they are elite and above the law. Just look at some soccer teams which are even fighting in the streets against each other ….

I learned to love and forgive again. And I have forgiven others and myself and let go of that past. I still love the people (well, most of them 🙂 ) and really hope more and more get out of that manipulation and start to be themselves again.
In Scientology there are so many true data (taken from Buddha, Veda and elsewhere) packed into so many false and dangerous data that people go crazy after a while and fight with others and with themselves. The innerst conflict is that they try to prove also the false data must be correct.
It’s very sad to observe and to have experienced it. And it is also an experience which is so extreme that it makes you so strong for other manipulations in other groups and society through media etc.! I learned a lot and I am now happy about it. It is my journey and it got me to all those cognitions about life which I have now. 😉
I really can say now and mean it: I do love you people out there – as you are. You are wonderfull in the way you are. There is nothing wrong with you or me or anybody as being. We live and it’s great! 😀

In Scientology there are so many true data (taken from Buddha, Veda and elsewhere) packed into so many false and dangerous data that people go crazy after a while and fight with others and with themselves. The innerst conflict is that they try to prove also the false data must be correct.

That’s a great way to put it, Eddie. I saw the same thing: “The ideology must always be true – even when it’s not.”

Good point. I agree but was thinking a little more mathematical “sets” when I made that comment. Context and set theory seem related. What people do, say and think makes perfect sense to them within the confines of whichever elastic bubble they happened to have constructed for themselves. Scientology is consistent within its own context because it defines itself that way and has no other particular consistency except that.

hehe I have turned over a new leaf. Ideologies abound and it seems that when we stop thinking of them as an ideology and begin thinking of them as true, we fall prey to any unwanted result which they are capable.

Which brings the question, “Is religion an ideology?” I thought “Yes.” Then thought I’d side-check myself so with a few seconds of research found differing opinions. I liked this one. Tawfik Hamid is a former Islamic-extremist but who now is more of a thinker and reformer. He defines the difference between religion and ideology thusly: “A religion becomes an ideology when the followers of this religion cannot tolerate the existence of those who have different views or beliefs, and when they understand their religious text literally and refuse to accept any way of understanding the religion other than their own way of understanding.”

I like this way of looking at the difference and can live with this as I have no wish to bend another’s benign way of perceiving their world. I only want others to also grant me this right. And so to myself, to remain mindful of the difference and say to myself, “There is no difference except the blurry line between benign and malignant.” For me, that line is surely crossed when another pushes their view of life on me in an aggressive way. And to be clear, “an aggressive way” is when the invade my own space with their ideology in a way that is uncomfortably close to me. And I grant this definition to others as well. If I become pushy, just say, “Back off. I am uncomfortable.”

Alanzo: If there is a mathematical set which includes: Church of Scientologists Independent Scientologists Ex-Scientologists Critics And Facebook Friends I think we are looking at the same thing.

Chris: Yes, we are looking at the same thing. In this example, we have sets and subsets. The way I’m using this socially is simply that sets are allowed to define themselves and we have to accept that definition philosophically. When the definition of a set overreaches such as in “all must believe” then this is too inconsistent a doctrine to allow to stand and I believe that doctrine must be limited by those of us outside that set. Religious ideology within a religious order may not be subject to debate as who can debate authority? But the rest of us can still watch and listen and when a religious ideology is physically harmful to its adherents, then we should act to prevent this harm even when it violates the religious freedom of those adherents. Slippery slope, I know. That’s just the way I see it and I know my ideology crosses up that of some those adherents. Still, the world of social orders is complicated.

The interesting part here is that Freezone people seem not to notice that HE&R (human emotion and reaction) is causing all the trouble it does. Yes, there is an Emotional Tone Scale, but one doesn’t have to use it to view reality. It’s like using a prism to view the world.
One doesn’t have to do this. One has the choice to stop dramatizing.
For example, we can consider a car. It might be useful, or one might want to try driving it, or it might belong to someone else, or need repair. But to someone using the emotional tone scale, I’ll go through some responses: Apathy: “I don’t care about the car.” Grief: “I’ll never be able to afford one of those.” Fear: “That car could be dangerous. I should call Code Enforcement to force the owner to move it.” Anger: “That type of car was made in a foreign country, and that took good jobs away from us.” Boredom: “I’ve got better things to do. Like sit around and be bored.” Conservatism: “It looks nice, but it might not get the best mileage.” Note that all of these viewpoints are about the reaction of the observer to the car, the emotion coloring the viewpoint like a prism would distort perception, which would seem to me to be one of the (worst) manifestations of the reactive mind. It’s also very easy to police this sort of thing out of a forum, should anyone care to.
My solution to this sort of thing would be a relatively fast Dianetic action where, once a certain point in a case was reached, all the emotions were assessed for read and run. However, many of the Co$ refugees wouldn’t hear of such a thing, because LRH never wrote it. My opinion (having had much the same sort of thing done, in my own case) is that it functions to destroy the root causes of aberrant behavior. I can site references in Eastern philosophy, none of which the average “independant Scientologist” will ever read, for the same reason. Swami Vivekananda wrote extensively on the subject.

At the same time, one has to be aware of the proper use for a thing. Expressing philosophical freedom and controversial ideas isn’t the purpose of some forums and boards. However, I have been able to find a lot of references to auditors and Freezone orgs that I would use, as well as information about a few places/people I would prefer to avoid. Also, when I went to a Freezone convention, the people were uptone, friendly and decent, as opposed to toxic, looking for any deviance from LRH standard to attack, as I have found at Co$.

Jack:
One doesn’t have to do this. One has the choice to stop dramatizing.

Spyros:
Hi! Who is to judge what is dramatization and what is not? And which part of the tone scale does/does not contain dramatization? Not implying anything about you, at all. I’m writing based on my own past experience.

Helping people outperform themselves

I explore the potential of free will. I help people exercise their potential and achieve what they want.

Here you will find creations of art, music, fiction, philosophy, programming and other technical stuff, HP calculators, thought provoking blog posts and much more. You may use everything on this blog for any purpose as long as you give due credit.